Search

Objective: The aim of the study is to explore the barriers and facilitators of participation and key components for sleep health programs designed for corporate work environments., Methods: Semistructured interviews with corporate executives and occupational medicine specialists in the decision making and management of workplace health promotion programs (WHPP) within their companies were held before and during COVID-19. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify themes., Results: Barrier and facilitator themes emerging from the data include sleep health awareness, work culture, work-family balance, and confidentiality. Key components for sleep health programs included the following: identifying the need for a program, incorporating sleep health risk screening to WHPP, and promoting sleep health by raising awareness thereof., Conclusions: The identified barriers and facilitators to employee participation and key components of an ideal sleep health program provide guidance for further WHPP., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P.P. declared that she was employed by Health Partners during the study; A.B. declared that she was employed by CAOP during the study; W.v.M. declared that he was shareholder of company Evalua during the study. All three organizations Health Partners, CAOP, and Evalua were not involved in this study and were not involved in this article., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)

Aim: Intervention mapping (IM) is a method to systematically design interventions that is applied regularly within the public health domain. This study investigates whether IM is effectively used within the occupational safety and health domain as well. Specifically, this study explores the relation between the fidelity regarding the use of the IM protocol for intervention development, the implementation process and the effectiveness of the occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted including articles on development, implementation, and effects of occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions that were developed according to the IM-protocol. By means of a checklist, two authors reviewed the articles and rated them on several indicators regarding the fidelity of the IM-protocol, the implementation process, and the intervention effect. Results: A literature search resulted in a total of 12 interventions as described in 38 articles. The fidelity to the IM-protocol was relatively low for participation throughout the development process and implementation planning. No relationship was found between fidelity of the IM-protocol and the intervention effect. A theory-based approach (as one of the core elements of IM) appears to be positively related to a successful implementation process. Conclusion: Results of the review suggest that organizing a participative approach and implementation planning is difficult in practice. In addition, results imply that conducting matrices of change objectives as part of the intervention development, although challenging and time-consuming, may ultimately pay off, resulting in a tailored intervention that matches the target group.

This individual participant data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes on body mass index (BMI) across socio-economic groups and whether study and intervention characteristics explained inequalities in effectiveness. Studies were eligible if they assessed the effect of a workplace health promotion programme on BMI in the Netherlands, included workers of at least two different socio-economic positions (SEPs) and had a study design with premeasurement and postmeasurement and control condition. Data of 13 studies presenting 16 interventions (5183 participants) were harmonized. In a two-stage meta-analysis, the interaction between intervention and SEP on BMI was tested with linear mixed models for each study. Subsequently, the interaction terms were pooled. The influence of study and intervention characteristics on the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes was evaluated using meta-regression analyses. Compared with control conditions, workplace health promotion programmes overall showed a statistically non-significant 0.12 kg/m 2 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.25) decrease in BMI, which did not differ across SEP. Interventions evaluated within randomized controlled trials, agentic interventions, those that focused on high-risk groups, included a counselling component, consisted of more than five sessions, or were offered at the individual level did statistically significantly reduce BMI. No evidence was found for intervention-generated SEP inequalities., (© 2020 The Authors. Obesity Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.)

Background: This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aimed to investigate socioeconomic inequalities in effectiveness on healthy behavior of, and compliance to, workplace health promotion programs., Methods: Dutch (randomized) controlled trials were identified and original IPD were retrieved and harmonized. A two-stage meta-analysis was conducted where linear mixed models were performed per study (stage 1), after which individual study effects were pooled (stage 2). All models were adjusted for baseline values of the outcomes, age and gender. Intervention effects were assessed on physical activity, diet, alcohol use, and smoking. Also, we assessed whether effects differed between participants with low and high program compliance and. All analyses were stratified by socioeconomic position., Results: Data from 15 studies (n = 8709) were harmonized. Except for fruit intake (beta: 0·12 [95% CI 0·08 0·15]), no effects were found on health behaviors, nor did these effects differ across socioeconomic groups. Only participants with high compliance showed significant improvements in vigorous and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and in more fruit and less snack intake. There were no differences in compliance across socioeconomic groups., Conclusions: Workplace health promotion programs were in general not effective. Neither effectiveness nor compliance differed across socioeconomic groups (operationalized by educational level). Even though stronger effects on health behavior were found for participations with high compliance, effects remained small. The results of the current study emphasize the need for new directions in health promotion programs to improve healthy behavior among workers, in particular for those in lower socioeconomic position.

Introduction: Obesity and unhealthy behaviour are more prevalent among workers with a low compared with a high socioeconomic position (SEP), and thus contribute to socioeconomic health inequalities. The occupational setting is considered an important setting to address unhealthy behaviours due to the possibility to efficiently reach a large group of adults through worksite health promotion. This paper describes the rationale and design for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and a socioeconomic equity-specific reanalysis aiming to: (1) investigate socioeconomic differences in the effectiveness of interventions aimed at promoting healthy behaviour and preventing obesity, (2) examine socioeconomic differences in reach and compliance and (3) to investigate underlying factors affecting possible socioeconomic differences., Methods and Analysis: A systematic search was conducted in electronic databases including Embase, Medline Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar as well as in grey literature and trial registries. Two researchers have independently selected a total of 34 relevant studies (from 88 articles). Responsible researchers of these eligible studies were asked to provide their study data and an assessment of the methodological criteria was done. The data of the intervention studies will be pooled for the IPD meta-analysis, whereas the socioeconomic equity-specific reanalysis will focus on each study separately, stratified for SEP. Both methods will be conducted to investigate socioeconomic differences in effectiveness, reach and compliance (research aims 1 and 2). For research aim 3, different factors, such as population characteristics, organisational work environment and intervention characteristics, will be investigated as possible moderators in the associations between SEP and effectiveness, reach and compliance., Ethics and Dissemination: The Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC declared that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to the meta-analyses. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and (inter)national conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: CRD42018099878., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This study explored the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental worksite health promotion program compared with usual practice, and of both intervention conditions separately. Participants were randomized to the combined intervention (n = 92), social environmental intervention (n = 118), physical environmental intervention (n = 96), or control group (n = 106). The social environmental intervention consisted of group motivational interviewing and the physical environmental intervention of workplace modifications. Both interventions were aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation. Effects included need for recovery (NFR), general vitality and job satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from the societal and employer's perspective, and return-on-investment analyses from the employer's perspective. Compared with usual practice, the combined intervention was significantly more effective in improving NFR (-8.4;95% CI:-14.6;-2.2) and significantly more expensive to the employer (3102; 95%CI:598;5969). All other between-group differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of ≥€170/point improvement (society) and ≥€300/point improvement (employer). For general vitality and job satisfaction, the interventions' maximum probabilities of cost-effective were low (≤0.55). All interventions had a negative return-on-investment. The combined intervention may be cost-effective for NFR depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay. Both separate interventions are not cost-effective for NFR. All interventions were neither cost-effective for general vitality and job satisfaction, nor cost-saving to the employer., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Adequate implementation of work-related stress management interventions can reduce or prevent work-related stress and sick leave in organizations. We developed a multifaceted integral stress-prevention strategy for organizations from several sectors that includes a digital platform and collaborative learning network. The digital platform contains a stepwise protocol to implement work-related stress-management interventions. It includes stress screeners, interventions and intervention providers to facilitate access to and the selection of matching work-related stress-management interventions. The collaborative learning network, including stakeholders from various organizations, plans meetings focussing on an exchange of experiences and good practices among organizations for the implementation of stress prevention measures. This paper describes the design of an integral stress-prevention strategy, Stress Prevention@Work, and the protocol for the evaluation of: 1) the effects of the strategy on perceived stress and work-related outcomes, and 2) the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the strategy., Methods: The effectiveness of Stress Prevention@Work will be evaluated in a cluster controlled trial, in a large healthcare organization in the Netherlands, at six and 12 months. An independent researcher will match teams on working conditions and size and allocate the teams to the intervention or control group. Teams in the intervention group will be offered Stress Prevention@Work. For each intervention team, one employee is responsible for applying the strategy within his/her team using the digital platform and visiting the collaborative learning network. Using a waiting list design, the control group will be given access to the strategy after 12 months. The primary outcome is the employees' perceived stress measured by the stress subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Secondary outcome measures are job demands, job resources and the number of preventive stress measures implemented at the team level. Alongside the trial, a process evaluation, including barriers and facilitators of the implementation of Stress Prevention@Work, will be conducted in one healthcare organisation., Discussion: If Stress Prevention@Work is found to be effective in one healthcare organisation, further implementation on a broader scale might lead to increased productivity and decreased stress and sick leave in other organizations. Results are expected in 2018., Trial Registration: NTR5527 . Registered 7 Dec 2015.