Dataset Information

Does Implementation Follow Design? A Case Study of a Workplace Health Promotion Program Using the 4-S Program Design and the PIPE Impact Metric Evaluation Models.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe the content of a multiyear market-based workplace health promotion (WHP) program and to evaluate design and implementation processes in a real-world setting.

Methods

Data was collected from the databases of the employer and the service provider. It was classified using the 4-S (Size, Scope, Scalability, and Sustainability) and PIPE Impact Metric (Penetration, Implementation) models. Data analysis utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Results

Program design covered well the evidence-informed best practices except for clear path toward sustainability, cooperation with occupational health care, and support from middle-management supervisors. The penetration rate among participants was high (99%) and majority (81%) of services were implemented as designed.

Conclusion

Study findings indicate that WHP market would benefit the use of evidence-based design principles and tendentious decisions to anticipate a long-term implementation process already during the planning phase.

SUBMITTER: Aikas AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5540356 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Implementation Follow Design? A Case Study of a Workplace Health Promotion Program Using the 4-S Program Design and the PIPE Impact Metric Evaluation Models.

Äikäs Antti Hermanni AH Pronk Nicolaas P NP Hirvensalo Mirja Hannele MH Absetz Pilvikki P

Journal of occupational and environmental medicine 20170801 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to describe the content of a multiyear market-based workplace health promotion (WHP) program and to evaluate design and implementation processes in a real-world setting.<h4>Methods</h4>Data was collected from the databases of the employer and the service provider. It was classified using the 4-S (Size, Scope, Scalability, and Sustainability) and PIPE Impact Metric (Penetration, Implementation) models. Data analysis utilized both qualitative and quantit ...[more]

PMID: 28665839

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWorkplace Health Promotion Programs (WHPP) have been shown to be an efficient way of improving workers' health. These programs can be incorporated in the worker's daily schedule and improve their productivity at work. Improving employees' health also benefits the employers by increasing their return on investment and lowering healthcare costs. The Activate Your Health program, created by Capsana in 2015, is a WHPP targeting multiple lifestyle habits for a three-year period. This WHPP includes tailored web-based interventions and the support of different health professionals throughout the years. We hypothesize that this approach will yield long-term lifestyle changes. The objective of the current paper is to describe the Activate Your Health program's design.Methods/designEleven companies are taking part in this WHPP and had to choose among five different options of this program and all their employees were encouraged to participate. Each option differs by the number and type of interventions included. The limited option, which is considered the control group, only consists in completing a questionnaire regarding their health status, lifestyle habits and behaviors. On the other end, the extensive option receives a combination of multiple interventions: online menus, health challenges, support in creating a healthy work environment, coaching by health professionals (nurse, nutritionist, and kinesiologist), health screening and flexibility assessment, online resources, social health platform, and activity tracking. The remaining options are in between these options and vary by the amount of intervention. Baseline data are already gathered; two other data collection periods will take place after one and 2 years into the program. The primary outcomes of the current program are physical activity and fitness measures, nutritional data, smoking habits, stress and intention to change.DiscussionThe Activate Your Health program will allow us to compare which combinations of interventions are the most effective. It is expected that the extensive option will be the most advantageous to improve lifestyle habits. The results will indicate the strength and weakness of each intervention and how it could be improved.Trial registrationClinicaltrails.gov, registration number: NCT02933385 (updated on the 26th of March 2019, initially registered on the 5th of October 2016).

Project description:BackgroundHuman-centered design, or design thinking, offers an extensive toolkit of methods and strategies for user-centered engagement that lends itself well to intervention development and implementation. These methods can be applied to the fields of public health and medicine to design interventions that may be more feasible and viable in real-world contexts than those developed with different methods.ObjectiveThe design team aimed to develop approaches to building food skills among caregivers of children aged 0-5 years who are eligible for a federal food assistance program while they were in the grocery store.MethodsThey applied 3 specific human-centered design methods-Extremes and Mainstreams, Journey Mapping, and Co-Creation Sessions-to collaboratively develop intervention approaches to enhance Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) reach and impact across food retail settings. Extremes and Mainstreams is a specific kind of purposive sampling that selects individuals based on characteristics beyond demographics. Journey Mapping is a visual tool that asks individuals to identify key moments and decision points during an experience. Co-Creation Sessions are choreographed opportunities for individuals to explicitly contribute to the design of a solution alongside research or design team members.ResultsTen caregivers with diverse lived experiences were selected to participate in remote design thinking workshops and create individual journey maps to depict their grocery store experiences. Common happy points and pain points were identified. Nine stakeholders, including caregivers, SNAP-Ed staff, and grocery store dieticians, cocreated 2 potential intervention approaches informed by caregivers' experiences and needs: a rewards program and a meal box option.ConclusionsThese 3 human-centered design methods led to a meaningful co-design process where proposed interventions aligned with caregivers' wants and needs. This case study provides other public health practitioners with specific examples of how to use these methods in program development and stakeholder engagement as well as lessons learned when adapting these methods to remote settings.

Project description:BackgroundWorkplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multi-level WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood. This study evaluated Get Healthy at Work (GHaW), a state-wide government-funded WHP in Australia.MethodsA mixed-method design included a longitudinal quasi-experimental survey of businesses registered with GHaW and a comparison group of businesses surveyed over a 12-month period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key contacts and employees of selected intervention group businesses and the service providers of the program were conducted to assess program adoption and adaptation.ResultsPositive business-level changes in workplace culture were observed over time among GHaW businesses compared with the control group. Multilevel regression modelling revealed perceptions that employees were generally healthy (p = 0.045 timeXgroup effect) and that the workplace promoted healthy behaviours (p = 0.004 timeXgroup effect) improved significantly while the control group reported no change in work culture perceptions. Changes in perceptions about work productivity were not observed; however only one third of businesses registered for the program had adopted GHaW during the evaluation period. Qualitative results revealed a number of factors contributing to program adoption: which depended on program delivery (e.g., logistics, technology and communication channels), design features of the program, and organisational factors (primarily business size and previous experience of WHPs).ConclusionsEvaluation of program factors is important to improve program delivery and uptake and to ensure greater scalability. GHaW has the potential to improve workplace health culture, which may lead to better health promoting work environments. These results imply that government can play a central role in enabling prioritisation and incentivising health promotion in the workplace.

Dataset Information

Does Implementation Follow Design? A Case Study of a Workplace Health Promotion Program Using the 4-S Program Design and the PIPE Impact Metric Evaluation Models.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does Implementation Follow Design? A Case Study of a Workplace Health Promotion Program Using the 4-S Program Design and the PIPE Impact Metric Evaluation Models.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets