A mixed methods process evaluation of the implementation of a peer coaching intervention to improve the execution of preventive tasks by occupational physicians.

S Orhan Pees, S H van Oostrom, F G Schaafsma, K I Proper

Abstract readEvaluation StudyRandomized Controlled Trial

In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. 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

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Effects of a peer coaching intervention for occupational physicians on time allocated to preventive tasks: a cluster randomised controlled trial.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026
Trial

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

4 authors.

S Orhan PeesCentre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands. suzanne.pees@rivm.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7623-9497

S H van OostromCentre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3086-6641

F G SchaafsmaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5827-7000

K I ProperCentre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7016-1625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the process of implementation of a peer coaching intervention program for occupational physicians (OPs) to improve the execution of preventive tasks. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to: (1) describe the reach and uptake of the intervention program; (2) determine the extent to which the program was implemented as intended; (3) provide insights into experiences of OPs, and (4) identify factors influencing the implementation.

methodsThis study employed a mixed-methods design. To address the four research aims, seven process indicators were used: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration and sustainability. Data were collected between March and June 2024 by means of an online questionnaire (N = 98), and 17 semi-structured interviews with group coordinators and OPs. The questionnaire included questions on attendance and reasons for non-attendance, experiences, and ratings of several aspects of the intervention program. Interviews focused on why and how OPs participated, experiences with the intervention program and how it can be improved, and how attention to prevention can be sustained.

resultsReach and uptake: 20 out of 21 groups allocated to the intervention program participated in the intervention and 98 out of 115 participants (85%) filled in the questionnaire. Three-quarters of the participants completed the entire program. Implementation as intended: 96% of the OPs successfully discussed barriers to the execution of preventive tasks, and 83% were able to formulate strategies for these barriers. Barriers and facilitators: Most participants managed to implement their formulated goals in practice. When they were unable to do so, time constraints and resistance from employers and their occupational health services often played a role. Participants' experiences: OPs valued the program's structure, interaction with colleagues, and the increased awareness it generated. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThe peer coaching group program was well-implemented and positively evaluated by OPs. The program can be improved by allocating more time to it, for instance by integrating it into the educational curriculum, and by paying more attention to the specific working conditions of OPs, such as the different sectors in which they are employed.

trial registrationISRCTN registry; ISRCTN15394765. Registered on 27 June 2023.

Indexed as

MentoringOccupational MedicinePeer GroupPreventive MedicineAccident PreventionHumansNetherlandsOccupational HealthPhysiciansProgram EvaluationSurveys and QuestionnairesContinuing medical educationOccupational physiciansPeer coachingPreventionProcess evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40448191

DOI10.1186/s12913-025-12950-z

PMCPMC12123882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.