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:BACKGROUND:Workplace 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/DESIGN:Eleven 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. DISCUSSION:The 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 REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrails.gov, registration number: NCT02933385 (updated on the 26th of March 2019, initially registered on the 5th of October 2016).

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sustaining health promotion programs (HPP) is critical to maintain their intended health benefits, community capacity, and to optimize resources and investment. However, not all programs are sustained beyond their initial implementation period. This is partly due to uncertainty regarding sustainability: lack of a clear definition; infrequent use of a sustainability framework; and lack of understanding of the factors that influence sustainability. The aim of this systematic review is to identify barriers and facilitators that promote or inhibit the sustainability of HPP, particularly those that can be considered in program planning. METHODS:Two search strategies were used: 1) electronic database searching; and 2) grey literature searching. Inclusion criteria included papers published since 1998, in English, focusing on the sustainability of HPP that explicitly used a sustainability framework and specifically reported on facilitators and barriers to sustainability. Exclusion criteria included papers that addressed environmental, system or sector sustainability. Quality assessment was conducted on all included papers and a quality assessment tool was developed for grey literature. Data analysis included a thematic analysis, using an a priori framework to initially code barriers and facilitators, which were then grouped into factors for HPP sustainability. Factors were then analyzed for frequency, importance, and relevance, and categorized into one of three tiers. RESULTS:Sixteen papers were included in this review. Eleven definitions of sustainability and 13 sustainability frameworks were used. A total of 83 barriers and 191 facilitators were identified and categorized into 14 factors: nine from the a priori framework, and five additional ones based on the results of our analysis. Tier 1 factors were the most important for sustainability with organizational capacity scoring the highest; tier 3, the least important. CONCLUSION:This review provides clarity regarding existing definitions of sustainability and sustainability frameworks. It identifies fourteen factors that influence program sustainability, which practitioners can consider when planning, developing and implementing HPP. In addition, it is important for practitioners to clearly articulate program elements that should be sustained, define sustainability as it relates to the context of their program, select a sustainability framework to guide their work, and consider these factors for sustainability.

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