ArticleBMC public health2023
An intervention to promote positive homeworker health and wellbeing through effective home-working practices: a feasibility and acceptability study.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the wake of Covid-19, the prevalence of working from home ('home-working') is expected to rise. Yet, working from home can have negative health and wellbeing impacts. Interventions are needed to promote effective ways of working that also protect workers' health and wellbeing. This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention intended to promote home-working practices that would protect and promote health behaviour and wellbeing.
methodsAn uncontrolled, single-arm mixed-methods trial design was employed. Forty-two normally-office-based UK workers, working from home between January-February 2021 (during the Covid pandemic), consented to receive the intervention. The intervention: a digital document offering evidence-based recommendations for home-working in ways conducive to health behaviour and wellbeing. Feasibility and acceptability were quantitatively indexed by: expressions of interest within 1 week (target threshold ≥ 35); attrition across the one-week study period (threshold ≤ 20%); and the absence of any apparent detriments in self-reported physical activity, sedentary behaviour, snacking, and work-related wellbeing prior to and one week after receiving the intervention. Qualitative think-aloud data, obtained while participants read through the intervention, and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, explored acceptability. Semi-structured interviews conducted one week after intervention exposure were content-analysed to identify whether and which behaviour changes were adopted.
resultsTwo feasibility criteria were met: 85 expressions of interest indicated satisfactory intervention demand, and no detriments were observed in health behaviours or wellbeing. Forty-two participants (i.e., maximum capacity for the study; 26 females, 16 males, aged 22-63) consented to take part. 31% dropped out over the one-week study period leaving a final sample of 29 (18 females, 11 males, aged 22-63), exceeding identified attrition thresholds. Think-aloud data showed that participants concurred with intervention guidance, but felt it lacked novelty and practicality. Follow-up interviews produced 18 (62%) participant reports of intervention adherence, where nine recommendations reportedly prompted behaviour change in at least one participant.
conclusionsMixed evidence was found for intervention feasibility and acceptability. Whilst the information was deemed relevant and of value, further development is required to increase its novelty. It may also be more fruitful to provide this information via employers, to encourage and emphasise employer endorsement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.