Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37057390›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2023

Process evaluation of workplace health promotion in a sheltered workplace: a care ethics perspective.

Hanneke van Heijster, Jantien van Berkel, Minne Bakker, Cécile Boot, Emely de Vet

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hanneke van HeijsterDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9064-7788
Jantien van BerkelDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Minne BakkerDepartment of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cécile BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Emely de VetDepartment of Social Sciences, Chair Group Consumption & Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMw; grant number 53-1001-411
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the potential health benefits of workplace health promotion for employees in sheltered workplaces, participation is often limited. The aim of this study was (i) to understand this limited participation, and (ii) to find opportunities for adapting workplace health promotion, such that it better meets the needs of the target population. A responsive process evaluation of an extensive multi-component workplace health promotion program targeting lifestyle behaviors, financial behaviors, literacy and citizenship, was performed in a large, sheltered workplace in the Netherlands (>3500 employees). To understand the limited participation, interviews with employees (n = 8), supervisors (n = 7) and managers (n = 2), and 10 participant observations were performed. To find opportunities for improving workplace health promotion in the sheltered workplace, 7 dialogs with employees were performed (n = 30). The interview data on the barriers for participation were evaluated through the lens of care ethics, as this allowed to understand the role of various stakeholders in the limited participation, as well as the indirect role of the institutional context. Findings showed that participation in workplace health promotion could increase if it is organized in a way that it encourages employees to work on health together, allow to tailor activities to different needs and capabilities of employees, and connects activities to employees' daily lives. A strength of this study is that the responsive process evaluation focused both on barriers for participation, as well as on opportunities to increase participation.

Indexed as

Health PromotionWorkplaceHumansLife StyleNetherlandsdisabilityemployees in sheltered workparticipatoryprocess evaluationworkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID37057390
PMCPMC10102729
OpenAlexW4365479278

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.