Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34633351›Full record

ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2021

Customized interventions improved employees' experience of recovery during the workday.

Lina Ejlertsson, Bodil Heijbel, Annika Brorsson, Margareta Troein, Ingemar H Andersson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Lina EjlertssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Bodil HeijbelDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Annika BrorssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Margareta TroeinDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Ingemar H AnderssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a lack of research regarding factors promoting recovery during the workday and effective interventions.

objectiveTo evaluate how different intervention activities may impact employees' experiences of recovery at the workplace.

methodsCustomized intervention activities based on qualitative results and a participatory approach were integrated among the employees at six primary health care centres (PHCCs; n = 166) during one year. Recovery and workplace factors were measured with a questionnaire at the start and end of intervention, and also in a control group (15 PHCCs; n = 328). Group differences were tested (Chi-2) and explanatory factors compared by logistic regression models.

resultsThe proportion of employees reporting workday recovery increased in the intervention group (19.9%to 29.1%; p = 0.01), whereas the control group showed no significant change. Recovery was explained by self-reflection and reflection with co-workers. After intervention, having influence on work situation, energy-building experience, and opportunity for laughter also contributed significantly to recovery.

conclusionsThe results contribute to work recovery research by confirming that a customized intervention may have an impact on employees' recovery experiences. The study showed that considering the factors of reflection, influence, and companionship can positively impact workplace recovery.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareWorkplaceHumansSurveys and Questionnairesoccupational healthprimary health careWork

Identifiers

PMID34633351
PMCPMC8609686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.