ArticleBMJ open2025
Promoting vitality in a sheltered workplace: a realist evaluation protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmployees in sheltered workplaces face greater challenges in maintaining a healthy and vitality-enhancing lifestyle due to physical, mental and psychosocial disabilities. While workplace health and vitality programmes are particularly relevant for this group, evaluation of programmes in this setting remains limited. This paper presents a protocol for a realist evaluation of a sheltered workplace's vitality programme aimed at physical, mental and social sources of vitality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a multimethod design with adaptive qualitative methods, we developed an initial programme theory that describes how context and mechanisms of the sheltered workplace's vitality programme influence the outcomes related to physical activity, healthy eating and social interaction. The protocol explains how we will collect and synthesise qualitative data, interviews, observations and focus group discussions, to refine and validate this initial programme theory and further evaluate the vitality programme. We aim to conduct at least 15 interviews, 15 observations, 3 focus group discussions and 1 final validating focus group. The study includes recipients of the intervention, namely individuals with varying work abilities, as well as other key stakeholders involved in the vitality programme. In this way, we will get insights into how to promote vitality-enhancing behaviours. Our context-sensitive methodology offers both scientific and practical value for future research in similar settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted through the Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus University Rotterdam (application number: ETH2324-0939). Findings will be disseminated through presentations, conferences, social media and peer-reviewed publications.
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.