Background
Methods
Literature search and study selection
Methodological quality assessment
Effect evaluations | ||
---|---|---|
Internal validity/study design
| ||
V1
| Randomization procedure | Positive if a random (unpredictable) assignment procedure sequence of subjects to the study groups was used and if there was a clear description of the procedure and adequate performance of the randomization |
V2
| Similarity of companies | Positive if they controlled for variability in included companies |
V3
| Similarity of study groups | Positive if the study groups were similar at the beginning of the study |
V4
| Dropout | Positive if the percentage of dropouts during the study period did not exceed 20% for short-term follow-up (≤ 3 months) or 30% for long-term follow-up (> 3 months) and adequately described |
V5
| Timing of outcome measurement | Positive if timing of outcome assessment was identical for intervention and control groups and for all important outcomes assessments. |
V6
| Blinding | Positive if the person performing the assessments was blinded to the group assignment |
V7
| Co-interventions | Positive if co-interventions were avoided or comparable. |
V8
| Outcome | Positive when data on outcome was selected with standardized methods of acceptable quality |
Descriptive criteria
| ||
D1
| Eligibility criteria (in- and exclusion criteria) | Positive if in- and exclusion criteria of participants were specified |
D2
| Baseline characteristics | Positive if an adequate description of the study groups was given for demographic variables: gender, age, type of work, hours a week working, education level, baseline main outcome measures |
D3
| Company characteristics | Positive if an adequate description of the included companies was given (type of industry, organizational characteristics) |
D4
| Intervention | Positive if an adequate description was given of the interventions(s): number of intervention aspects, type of interventions, frequency of sessions, intensity of intervention(s) |
D5
| Follow-up | Positive if a follow-up of 6 months or longer was described. |
Analysis
| ||
A1
| Sample size | Positive if an adequate sample size calculation was described |
A2
| Confounders | Positive if the analysis controlled for potential confounders |
A3
| Intention to treat | Positive if the intervention and control subjects were analyzed according to the group belonging to their initial assignment, irrespective of non-compliance and co-interventions. |
Process evaluations
| ||
T1
| Model used for evaluation | Positive if a theoretical framework for the evaluation was used and adequately described. |
T2
| Level of evaluation | Positive if implementation was evaluated on 2 or more levels (i.e. macro, meso, micro) |
T3
| Definition of outcome measure (process components) | Positive if the definition of the outcome measures (process variables and barriers and/or facilitators) were accurately described |
T4
| Reported process variables | a. Positive if four or more process evaluation variables are evaluated (in process evaluation) |
b. Positive if barriers or facilitators on 1 or more levels are presented | ||
T5
| Data collection | Positive if 2 or more techniques for data collection were used (triangulation). |
T6
| Timing of data collection | Positive if measurements of barriers and/or facilitators were performed pre-, during and after implementation. |
T7
| Quantitative outcome measures | Positive if data on quantitative outcome was selected with methods of acceptable quality and data on multiple process components was measured. |
T8
| Qualitative data | a. Positive if study design for qualitative data (theoretical framework, participant selection, setting, data collection) were adequately described |
b. Positive if qualitative data was analyzed by two researchers. | ||
T9
| Outcome related to implementation of intervention | Positive if outcomes (barriers and/or facilitators) are related to the quality of implementation |
Data extraction
Results
Study selection
Intervention and study characteristics
Methodological quality assessment
First author (Year) | Methodological quality assessment criterion – effect evaluations | Methodological quality assessment criterion – process evaluation | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V1 | V2 | V3 | V4 | V5 | V6 | V7 | V8 | Validity score (V) in % | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | T9 | Validity score (T) in % | |
Driessen et al. (2010, 2011)** | + | + | +/- | +/- | + | + | + | + | 87,5 | + | + | + | + | +/- | + | + | + | + | 94,4 |
Groeneveld et al. (2010, 2011)* | + | N/A | + | +/- | + | +/- | N/A | + | 83,3 | - | + | + | + | - | + | + | N/A | + | 75 |
French et al. (2010)* | +/- | + | +/- | N/A | + | N/A | +/- | + | 75 | - | N/A | - | - | - | +/- | +/- | N/A | - | 14,3 |
Dishman & Wilson et al. (2009, 2010) | + | +/- | +/- | - | + | - | +/- | + | 56,25 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 100 |
Yap et al. (2009, 2010)* | N/A | N/A | + | + | + | N/A | N/A | + | 100 | - | - | - | - | - | - | N/A | + | - | 12,5 |
Gilson et al. (2007, 2008) | + | N/A | + | - | +/- | - | - | + | 50 | - | - | + | - | - | +/- | N/A | +/- | - | 25 |
Goetzel, DeJoy, Wilson et al. (2007, 2009-2011)a *** | N/A | +/- | +/- | - | + | N/A | +/- | + | 75 | + | + | + | +/- | + | + | + | + | - | 83,3 |
Lemon, Estabrook et al. (2010-2011) | +/- | + | +/- | + | + | - | - | + | 62,5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 100 |
Andersen et al. (2011) | + | N/A | + | + | + | + | + | + | 100 | - | - | +/- | - | - | - | + | N/A | + | 31,25 |
Haukka, Pehkonen et al. (2009,2010) | + | - | + | + | + | N/A | - | + | 71,4 | - | + | + | + | +/- | + | + | + | + | 83,3 |
Sorensen, Hunt et al. (2005, 2007) | - | + | + | +/- | +/- | - | - | + | 50 | - | + | + | + | - | + | + | + | - | 66,67 |
Beresford et al. (2000, 2001, 2010)* | - | + | + | - | + | - | - | + | 50 | - | + | + | +/- | +/- | + | + | N/A | + | 75 |
Sorensen, Hunt et al. (2007, 2010) | - | N/A | + | + | + | - | - | +/- | 50 | - | - | +/- | - | - | +/- | +/- | N/A | +/- | 25 |
Steenhuis et al. (2004) | - | +/- | +/- | - | + | - | - | + | 37,5 | - | - | - | +/- | - | - | N/A | - | +/- | 12,5 |
Sorenson, Quintiliani et al. (2010) | _ | + | + | + | +/- | - | - | + | 56,25 | - | + | + | - | - | + | + | N/A | + | 62,5 |
Stoddard, Hunt et al. (2003, 2005) | - | + | + | N/A | + | - | - | +/- | 50 | - | + | +/- | +/- | - | + | + | N/A | - | 50 |
Volpp, Kim et al. (2009, 2011) | + | - | + | + | + | - | - | + | 62,5 | +/- | - | +/- | - | +/- | + | + | + | + | 61,1 |
Hasson et al. (2005, 2010) | + | - | + | + | + | - | - | + | 62,5 | + | - | + | - | + | + | + | N/A | +/- | 68,75 |
Vermeer et al. (2011) | +/- | - | - | +/- | +/- | - | - | + | 31,25 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | - | 88,89 |
Strijk et al. (2011, 2012) | + | + | + | +/- | + | + | + | + | 93,75 | + | + | + | + | +/- | + | + | N/A | - | 81,25 |
Verweij et al. (2011, 2012) | + | - | + | + | + | + | + | + | 87,5 | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 100 |
Jorgensen et al. (2011, 2012) | + | - | + | - | + | +/- | + | + | 68,75 | + | - | + | + | +/- | - | + | N/A | - | 56,25 |
Process evaluation design
Reporting of process evaluation components
Implementation barriers and/or facilitators
Main categories | Description of the determinants for implementation | B/F |
---|---|---|
Characteristics of the socio-political context
| 1. Compatibility of program with societal developments (attention for health in society) [74] | F |
2. Competitive business environment[53] | B | |
Characteristics of the organization
| 3. Organizational reorganization: reorganization due to take over by another company [68] | B |
B | ||
5. Organizational culture: | ||
(a) Senior leaders emphasized the need to implement the intervention keeping the organizational culture in mind [53] | F | |
B | ||
(c) The organizational culture emphasized goal setting and tracks progress towards achieving goals [53] | F | |
(d) Worksite culture supported social interaction among workers and between workers and managers [55] | F | |
6. Organizational size: | ||
(a) In a large organization (1000+ employees) there were numerous competing priorities and it was challenging to maintain visibility [60] | B | |
(b) In a small organization (<500 employees) it is challenging to assemble a critical mass of potential participants for participation in the intervention [60] | B | |
(c) Small organizations tend to receive more intervention components per employee than larger organizations [61] | F | |
7. Amount of company locations: Different company locations at which the intervention needs to be delivered [74] | B | |
F | ||
9. Company image: the program gives the organization a positive image since it shows that the organization cares about their employees [66] | F | |
10. Perceived responsibility of employer towards workers health and wellbeing [74] | F | |
B | ||
F | ||
13. Conflicting relationship between management and researchers[68] | B | |
14. General good organizational support for health promotion [53] | F | |
15. Poor psychosocial work environment consisting of the following the subcomponents: influence at work, work pace quantitative work demands, interpersonal relations [70] | B | |
16. History of social interaction: Worksite has a history of bringing employees together for social activities and a history of positive social interaction between worker and management [55] | F | |
17. Management support: | ||
F | ||
B | ||
(c) Managers encouraging workers to attend intervention [55] | F | |
(d) Experienced management support are different for junior employees and senior employees [64] | B | |
(e) formal approval of upper management before start of intervention [57] | F | |
(f) Lack of perceived management support by implementers on site [74] | B | |
(h) Management commitment and willingness to provide employees with release time from their usual duties to attend intervention [55] | F | |
18. Management participation and engagement: | ||
F | ||
(b) Active management engagement in planning [55] | F | |
19. Relationship between management and employees: Respectful relationship between management and worker [55] | ||
Characteristics of the implementer
| 20. Job position of implementer: [74] | |
(a) Self-employed (advantage of managing his or her own time) | F | |
(b) Internal position (facilitating in scheduling appointments) | F | |
(c) external position | ||
B | ||
(a) Poor support from co- implementers | B | |
(b) Support for implementers to change their routines (applicable when implementer is an occupational physician) [74] | F | |
22. Collaboration between implementers: lack of possibility to exchange experiences between implementers [74] | B | |
23. Available time of implementer: | ||
F | ||
(b) The intervention involved extra work on top of the heavy workload of the regular duties of the implementer [66] | B | |
(c) planning difficulties of implementers with planning al contacts in the intervention period [59] | B | |
24. Expectations of implementer: implementers expectations were met [74] | F | |
B | ||
F | ||
B | ||
28. Absence of decision maker among implementers: among the implementers there lacked a person who was entitled to make decision at department level [72] | B | |
29. High perceived Level of control for intervention delivery by provider/implementer [60] | F | |
30. Low level of engagement of implementers in planning, promoting and providing feedback on intervention activities [55] | B | |
F | ||
Characteristics of the intervention program
| F | |
33. Compatibility and alignment of intervention with: | ||
F | ||
F | ||
(c) Ease of integration of intervention in working live [64] | F | |
34. The intervention fit implementers current work [74] | F | |
35. Intervention is part of the worksites integral health policy and seen as a pilot for future health promotion policy instead of independent project [57] | F | |
F | ||
37. Time: Project took more time than expected due to high workload of administration and planning [74] | B | |
F | ||
39. Observability of positive results of the intervention [74] | F | |
40. Risk and uncertainty level/Triability: the degree to which an innovation can be adopted/implemented with minimal risk [56] | F | |
41. Conflicting interest between worksite and intervention [66] | B | |
42. Timing of intervention activities: intervention activities coincide with scheduled breaks [68] | F | |
B | ||
F | ||
F | ||
46. Ease of access to the program by bringing the program to participants and making participation free or inexpensive [53] | F | |
Characteristics of the participant
| 47. Needs of participants: | |
(a) Positive personal preferences for program [63] | F | |
(b) No need for intervention (e.g., already being healthy) [74] | B | |
(c) Positive program expectation [71] | F | |
(d) Prior failed attempts to maintain a healthy lifestyle [62] | B | |
B | ||
B | ||
B | ||
51. Amount of peer leaders: Few peer leaders due to geographically separated worksites made it difficult to establish group cohesion [68] | B | |
52. Lack of social support: | ||
(a) No interaction with the entire workforce to build worksite-wide social norms and social support) [68] | B | |
(b) Peer support: difficult to engage in behavior not considered normal by peers [64] | B | |
53. Lack of motivation of workers to participate in intervention [54] | B | |
B |