ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2026
Rebuilding international networks through participatory action-oriented training after COVID-19: insights from an action research study.
Article in Environmental and occupational health practice, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Participatory action-oriented training (PAOT) programs are pivotal in developing facilitators for workplace environment improvement. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted long-standing international training programs, requiring substantial reconstruction. This study examined the reconstruction of an international PAOT facilitator training program in the post-COVID-19 context to clarify the requirements for effective facilitator training and associated learning outcomes. Methods: An action research design consisting of two iterative cycles of action and reflection was employed. Organizers (n=10), participants (n=79), and researchers (n=9) were involved, with partial overlap between organizers and researchers. Data sources included participants' written reports from the second training, reflection meetings, steering committee documents, and supplementary training materials. Data were analyzed using a qualitative descriptive analytic approach with triangulation across sources. Reflections on the first post-pandemic training informed the redesign and implementation of the second training. Results: Key challenges identified after the first training included limited participant interaction, insufficient experiential learning in the introductory phase, and weakened international training networks. These reflections led to the reconstruction of a participatory, experience-based PAOT model grounded in iterative action research cycles. Participants in the revised program reported enhanced experiential learning, a clearer understanding of facilitation roles, broadened occupational health perspectives, and strengthened international and intergenerational learning networks. Conclusions: Systematic reflection and experiential redesign can effectively reconstruct facilitator training in disrupted contexts. The findings clarify key requirements for effective facilitator development and demonstrate the value of action research in developing context-responsive training programs.
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.