ArticleBMC public health2026
A risk management intervention in Australian hospital food service departments: an evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.
Article in BMC public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework was used to undertake a process evaluation of a workplace intervention using the A Participative Hazard Identification and Risk Management (APHIRM) Toolkit. The aim of the intervention was to reduce work-related physical and psychosocial hazards associated with musculoskeletal disorders and stress related mental health in hospital food services employees. This study aimed to evaluate the process undertaken to support implementation of the APHIRM toolkit.
methodQualitative and quantitative data collected from individual participants, research team observations and organisations were used to report on the five dimensions of the RE-AIM framework and explore the implementation process of the APHIRM toolkit (the intervention).
resultsOrganisations reported a range of strategies to improve reach of the intervention, with variability across different work groups. Common challenges reported related to senior management support, communication and competing organisational priorities. A key strength of the APHIRM toolkit is the prioritisation of physical and psychosocial hazards and the opportunities for dialogue between workers and management and supervisors that do not normally exist.
conclusionsThis process evaluation of the intervention offered valuable insights which can be used to improve the APHIRM toolkit's resources, tools, and training. It highlighted ongoing challenges in addressing psychosocial hazards and the important role of the toolkit in providing workers with an opportunity to be involved in developing tailored risk controls, through the use of a highly participative approach. For the hospital food service employees involved, this participatory approach was novel. Findings from this evaluation will inform modification of guidance and training provided within the APHIRM toolkit.
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.