Trial reportBMC public health2024
A participatory and comprehensive intervention to improve violence prevention in two high-risk occupations: effect and process evaluation of a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Workplace violence: A complex challenge demanding a systemic response.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Correction: A participatory and comprehensive intervention to improve violence prevention in two high-risk occupations: effect and process evaluation of a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWork-related violence committed by clients, patients, and customers represents a major occupational health risk for employees that needs to be reduced.
methodsWe tested a comprehensive violence prevention intervention involving active participation of both employees and managers in the Prison and Probation Service (PPS) and on psychiatric wards in Denmark. We used a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial design. We measured the degree of implementation of the intervention by registration of fidelity, reach, and dose and used a mixed-effects regression analysis to estimate the effects of the intervention.
resultsWe recruited 16 work units for the intervention, but three work units dropped out. The average implementation rate was 73%. In the psychiatric wards, the intervention led to statistically significant improvements in the primary outcome (an increase in the degree to which managers and employees continuously work on violence prevention practices based on their registration and experiences), but none statistically significant improvements in any of the secondary outcomes. In the PPS units, the intervention did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome, but to statistically significant improvements in three secondary outcomes.
conclusionMost work units were able to carry out the intervention as planned. The intervention showed mixed results regarding the primary outcome. Nevertheless, the results indicate improvements also in the sector where a change in the primary outcome was not achieved. The results point at that a participatory and comprehensive approach could be a viable way of working with violence prevention in high-risk workplaces.
trial registrationISRCTN86993466: 20/12/2017.
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.