ArticleOccupational health science2019
A Participatory Action Research Approach to Mental Health Interventions among Corrections Officers: Standardizing Priorities and Maintaining Design Autonomy.
Article in Occupational health science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-production in sleep research: A scoping review of current practices and future directions.Journal of sleep research · 2025Article
- Expanding the Focus of Occupational Safety and Health: Lessons from a Series of Linked Scientific Meetings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Progress in Corrections Worker Health: The National Corrections Collaborative Utilizing a Total Worker Health® Strategy.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2020Article
- Defining 'Integration' for Total Worker Health®: A New Proposal.Annals of work exposures and health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A central dilemma in Participatory Action Research (PAR) is to establish participant decision authority on interventions while adhering to rigorous research practices. We faced this dilemma as part of an ongoing multi-site field research project in the corrections sector, where semi-autonomous union-based Design Teams (DTs) address worker health issues and design interventions. Employee focus groups and surveys elicited areas of concern, pointing to four topics in particular: overtime and sleep, work-family balance, physical fitness, and mental health; these were later expanded to eight priority areas. Quantitative rankings were generated by focus groups of line-level employees and supervisors. A multi-level, iterative priority selection process averaged focus group ratings of topic importance and also difficulty to address separately. Areas of job stress and mental health had highest importance but were also considered most difficult to address. A labor-management steering committee reviewed and endorsed the rankings and transmitted these to newly formed DTs. In principle, each DT was free to establish a different topic for initial intervention but they all chose the most important and difficult to address topics. This structured multi-tiered participatory process preserved ownership by all parties. Balancing participant autonomy and efficient prioritization of topics among multiple interest groups in this PAR effort met research methods needs and also made it easier for DTs to focus on the difficult and stigmatized area of mental health in the correctional workforce.
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.