Search

Background: Multicomponent workplace-based interventions aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers are becoming increasingly popular. 'Take a Stand!' was such an intervention, reducing sitting time by 71 min after 1 month and 48 min after 3 months. However, it is unclear how the implementation process of 'Take a Stand!' affected these results. The present study explored how individual factors and organizational context influenced implementation and effect in 'Take a Stand!'Methods: This was a mixed-methods study, combining data from interviews, questionnaires and accelerometers. Directed content analysis was used for analysing interviews with participants, ambassadors and managers from the 10 intervention offices in the 'Take a Stand!'Study: Categories for analysis were taken from Framework for Evaluating Organizational-level Interventions. Interview data were combined with questionnaire and activity data, and multilevel analysis was undertaken to assess how changes in sitting time varied depending on the assessed factors. In addition, interview data were used to underpin results from the multilevel analysis.Results: Concurrent institutional changes were found to be a barrier for the intervention by ambassadors, while participants and managers did not find it to be an issue. Management support was consistently highlighted as very important. Participants evaluated ambassadors as being generally adequately active but also, that the role had a greater potential. The motivational and social aspects of the intervention were considered important for the effect. This was supported by regression analyses, which showed that a strong desire to change sitting time habits, strong motivation towards the project, and a high sense of collective engagement were associated to less sitting time at 3 months of about 30 min/8 h working day compared to participants with low scores. Influence from other participants (e.g. seeing others raise their tables) and the use of humour were continuously highlighted by participants as positive for implementation. Finally, the intervention was found to influence the social climate at the workplace positively.Conclusion: Individual motivation was related to the sitting time effect of 'Take a Stand!', but the organizational culture was relevant both to the implementation and effect within the office community. The organizational culture included among others to ensure general participation, to uphold management and peer-support, and maintain a positive environment during the intervention period.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01996176 . Prospectively registered 21 November 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Second-hand smoke (SHS) in households remains a serious public health problem in Sri Lanka, partly due to a lack of voluntary prohibitions of tobacco smoking inside houses. Women are especially at risk of being exposed. Effective community based interventions to reduce the SHS in households targeting women is scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a multi-component intervention on household SHS exposure among Sri Lankan women.Methods: Thirty clusters of 25 women (aged 18-65) from 750 households were randomized into the intervention and control groups. Women in the intervention group were exposed to activities which focused on improving knowledge on the health effects of SHS, attitudes towards SHS exposure, right to a smoke-free living and women empowerment against smoking. The duration of the intervention was six months. The comparison group received no intervention. The primary outcome of interest was self-reported SHS exposure in the household within 7 days prior to data collection. The secondary outcomes were exposure in the past 30 days, knowledge of the health risks of exposure, attitudes towards exposure, right to smoke-free living, women empowerment against smoking, and smoking inside the homes.Results: Final assessment was in 329 (89.6%) in the intervention group and 309 (85.8%) in the comparison group. Following the intervention, significantly lower proportion of women in the intervention group as compared to the control group reported SHS exposure in their households within 7-days (9.2% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.02) and 30-days (13.6% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.008) prior to the post survey. As compared to the control group, significantly higher median scores were observed in the intervention group on the knowledge of the health risks of exposure to SHS (p < 0.001), attitudes on exposure to SHS (p = 0.004), right to smoke free living (p = 0.001) and women empowerment (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Multi-component intervention activities were effective in reducing household exposure to SHS among women.Trial Registration: Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry SLCTR/2014/033. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The worksite cafeteria is a suitable setting for interventions focusing on changing eating behavior, because a lot of employees visit the worksite cafeteria regularly and a variety of interventions could be implemented there. The aim of this paper is to describe the intervention development and design of the evaluation of an intervention to make the purchase behavior of employees in the worksite cafeteria healthier. The developed intervention called "the worksite cafeteria 2.0" consists of a set of 19 strategies based on theory of nudging and social marketing (marketing mix). The intervention will be evaluated in a real-life setting, that is Dutch worksite cafeterias of different companies and with a number of contract catering organizations.Methods/design: The study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT), with 34 Dutch worksite cafeterias randomly allocated to the 12-week intervention or to the control group. Primary outcomes are sales data of selected products groups like sandwiches, salads, snacks and bread topping. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction of employees with the cafeteria and vitality.Discussion: When executed, the described RCT will provide better knowledge in the effect of the intervention "the worksite cafeteria 2.0" on the purchasing behavior of Dutch employees in worksite cafeterias.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial register: NTR5372 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Farm and rural youth have frequent exposure to hazardous noise on the farm and recreationally, and have an increased prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss. There is a lack of programs to prepare this high-risk population to use hearing conservation strategies.Methods: The purpose of this project is to test innovative hearing health education programs delivered to a large target group and to determine the effectiveness and sustainability of these programs in promoting hearing health among farm and rural youth. Specifically, this project includes: a) an interactive face-to-face informational program alone, b) an interactive face-to-face informational program followed by an Internet-based booster, and c) a no-intervention control. Sites will include selected affiliates of a major farm youth safety education organization. Data will be collected at baseline, 3, and 12 months. A linear mixed model will be used to compare the effectiveness of the three interventions over time. Descriptive statistics will be used to compare program costs and sustainability ratings.Discussion: Outcomes of this project will provide knowledge necessary to implement quality and cost-effective services to farm and rural youth, a high-risk and underserved population, that can be implemented and sustained after the study is completed.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02472821 Registered 09 Jun, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]