Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34615522›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2021

Process evaluation of a complex workplace intervention to prevent musculoskeletal pain in nursing staff: results from INTEVAL_Spain.

Mercè Soler-Font, José Maria Ramada, Antoni Merelles, Anna Amat, Carmen de la Flor, Olga Martínez, Claudia Palma-Vasquez, Consuelo Sancho, Pilar Peña, Ute Bültmann and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Mercè Soler-FontCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
José Maria RamadaCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Antoni MerellesNursing Department, Nursing and Podiatry Faculty, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Anna AmatCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Carmen de la FlorCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Olga MartínezCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Claudia Palma-VasquezCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain.
Consuelo SanchoOccupational Health Service, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Pilar PeñaOccupational Health Service, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Spain.
Ute BültmannDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sander K R van ZonDepartment of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Consol SerraCenter for Research in Occupational Health, University Pompeu Fabra/ IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain. consol.serra@upf.edu.
Hospital del Mar Research Institute · ESMunicipal Institute for Medical Research · ESParc de Salut · ESCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESCorporació Sanitària Parc Taulí · ESUniversitat de València · ESUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundINTEVAL_Spain was a complex workplace intervention to prevent and manage musculoskeletal pain among nursing staff. Process evaluations can be especially useful for complex and multifaceted interventions through identifying the success or failure factors of an intervention to improve the intervention implementation.

objectivesThis study performed a process evaluation of INTEVAL_Spain and aimed to examine whether the intervention was conducted according to the protocol, to investigate the fulfilment of expectations and the satisfaction of workers.

methodsThe intervention was a two-armed cluster randomized controlled trial and lasted 1 year. The process evaluation included quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods were used to address the indicators of Steckler and Linnan's framework. Data on recruitment was collected through a baseline questionnaire for the intervention and the control group. Reach and dose received were collected through participation sheets, dose delivered and fidelity through internal registries, and fulfilment of expectations and satisfaction were collected with two questions at 12-months follow-up. Qualitative methods were used for a content analysis of discussion groups at the end of the intervention led by an external moderator to explore satisfaction and recommendations. The general communication and activities were discussed, and final recommendations were agreed on. Data were synthesized and results were reported thematically.

resultsThe study was performed in two Spanish hospitals during 2016-2017 and 257 workers participated. Recruitment was 62 and 51% for the intervention and the control group, respectively. The reach of the activities ranged from 96% for participatory ergonomics to 5% for healthy diet. The number of sessions offered ranged from 60 sessions for Nordic walking to one session for healthy diet. Fidelity of workers ranged from 100% for healthy diet and 79% for participatory ergonomics, to 42 and 39% for Nordic walking and case management, respectively. Lowest fidelity of providers was 75% for case management and 82% for Nordic walking. Fulfilment of expectations and satisfaction ranged from 6.6/10 and 7.6/10, respectively, for case management to 10/10 together for the healthy diet session. Discussion groups revealed several limitations for most of the activities, mainly focused on a lack of communication between the Champion (coordinator) and the workers.

conclusionsThis process evaluation showed that the implementation of INTEVAL_Spain was predominantly carried out as intended. Process indicators differed depending on the activity. Several recommendations to improve the intervention implementation process are proposed.

trial registrationISRCTN15780649 .

Indexed as

Case managementCluster randomized controlled trialErgonomicsHealth promotionMediterranean dietMindfulnessNordic walkingParticipatory

Identifiers

PMID34615522
PMCPMC8493695
OpenAlexW3165406898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.