Participatory design of integrated safety and health interventions in the workplace: a case study using the Intervention Design and Analysis Scorecard (IDEAS) Tool.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Robertson MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8064738 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Participatory design of integrated safety and health interventions in the workplace: a case study using the Intervention Design and Analysis Scorecard (IDEAS) Tool.
Robertson Michelle M MM Henning Robert A RA Warren Nicholas N Nobrega Suzanne S Dove-Steinkamp Megan M Tibiriçá Lize L Bizarro Andrea A
International journal of human factors and ergonomics 20151101 3-4
Total Worker Health™ (TWH) interventions for improved employee safety, health and wellbeing depend on integrated approaches that involve changes to the workplace or work organisation as well as behavioural or lifestyle changes made by workers. Intervention Design and Analysis Scorecard (IDEAS) Tool to engage front-line employees in planning TWH interventions and obtaining needed management support. The IDEAS Tool consists of seven planning steps in a scorecard approach that helps front-line empl ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are complex and fast-paced clinical settings where a diagnosis is made in a time-, information-, and resource-constrained context. Thus, it is predisposed to suboptimal diagnostic outcomes, leading to errors and subsequent patient harm. Arriving at a timely and accurate diagnosis is an activity that occurs after an effective collaboration between the patient or caregiver and the clinical team within the ED. Interventions such as novel sociotechnical solutions are needed to mitigate errors and risks.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify challenges that frontline ED health care providers and patients face in the ED diagnostic process and involve them in co-designing technological interventions to enhance diagnostic excellence.MethodsWe will conduct separate sessions with ED health care providers and patients, respectively, to assess various design ideas and use a participatory design (PD) approach for technological interventions to improve ED diagnostic safety. In the sessions, various intervention ideas will be presented to participants through storyboards. Based on a preliminary interview study with ED patients and health care providers, we created intervention storyboards that illustrate different care contexts in which ED health care providers or patients experience challenges and show how each intervention would address the specific challenge. By facilitating participant group discussion, we will reveal the overlap between the needs of the design research team observed during fieldwork and the needs perceived by target users (ie, participants) in their own experience to gain their perspectives and assessment on each idea. After the group discussions, participants will rank the ideas and co-design to improve our interventions. Data sources will include audio and video recordings, design sketches, and ratings of intervention design ideas from PD sessions. The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study. This foundational work will help identify the needs and challenges of key stakeholders in the ED diagnostic process and develop initial design ideas, specifically focusing on sociotechnological ideas for patient-, health care provider-, and system-level interventions for improving patient safety in EDs.ResultsThe recruitment of participants for ED health care providers and patients is complete. We are currently preparing for PD sessions. The first results from design sessions with health care providers will be reported in fall 2024.ConclusionsThe study findings will provide unique insights for designing sociotechnological interventions to support ED diagnostic processes. By inviting frontline health care providers and patients into the design process, we anticipate obtaining unique insights into the ED diagnostic process and designing novel sociotechnical interventions to enhance patient safety. Based on this study's collected data and intervention ideas, we will develop prototypes of multilevel interventions that can be tested and subsequently implemented for patients, health care providers, or hospitals as a system.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/55357.
| S-EPMC11226926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare facilities are notorious for occupational health and safety problems. Multi-level interventions are needed to address interacting exposures and their overlapping origins in work organization features. Worker participation in problem identification and resolution is essential. This study evaluates the CPH-NEW Healthy Workplace Participatory Program (HWPP), a Total Worker Health® protocol to develop effective employee teams for worker safety, health, and wellbeing.MethodsSix public sector, unionized healthcare facilities are enrolled, in three pairs, matched by agency. The unit of intervention is a workplace health and safety committee, adapted here to a joint labor-management "Design Team" (DT). The DT conducts root cause analyses, prioritizes problems, identifies feasible interventions in light of the constraints and needs of the specific setting, makes business-case presentations to facility leadership, and assists in evaluation. Following a stepped-wedge (cross-over) design, one site in each pair is randomly assigned to "immediate intervention" status, receiving the full coached intervention at baseline; in the "lagged intervention" site, coaching begins about half-way through the study. Program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes are assessed at both organizational (e.g., workers' compensation claim and absenteeism rates, perceived management support of safety) and individual levels (e.g., self-rated health, sleep quality, leisure-time exercise). Targeted pre-post analyses will also examine specific outcomes appropriate to the topics selected for intervention. Process evaluation outcomes include fidelity of the HWPP intervention, extent of individual DT member activity, expansion of committee scope to include employee well-being, program obstacles and opportunities in each setting, and sustainability (within the available time frame).DiscussionThis study aims for a quantitative evaluation of the HWPP over a time period long enough to accomplish multiple intervention cycles in each facility. The design seeks to achieve comparable study engagement and data quality between groups. We will also assess whether the HWPP might be further improved to meet the needs of U.S. public sector healthcare institutions. Potential challenges include difficulty in pooling data across study sites if Design Teams select different intervention topics, and follow-up periods too short for change to be observed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04251429 (retrospectively registered January 29, 2020), protocol version 1.
| S-EPMC7526105 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOccupational sedentary behaviour is an important contributor to overall sedentary risk. There is limited evidence for effective workplace interventions to reduce occupational sedentary time and increase light activity during work hours. The purpose of the study was to determine if participatory workplace interventions could reduce total sedentary time, sustained sedentary time (bouts >30 minutes), increase the frequency of breaks in sedentary time and promote light intensity activity and moderate/vigorous activity (MVPA) during work hours.MethodsA randomised controlled trial (ANZCTR NUMBER: ACTN12612000743864) was conducted using clerical, call centre and data processing workers (n = 62, aged 25-59 years) in 3 large government organisations in Perth, Australia. Three groups developed interventions with a participatory approach: 'Active office' (n = 19), 'Active Workstation' and promotion of incidental office activity; 'Traditional physical activity' (n = 14), pedometer challenge to increase activity between productive work time and 'Office ergonomics' (n = 29), computer workstation design and breaking up computer tasks. Accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X, 7 days) determined sedentary time, sustained sedentary time, breaks in sedentary time, light intensity activity and MVPA on work days and during work hours were measured before and following a 12 week intervention period.ResultsFor all participants there was a significant reduction in sedentary time on work days (-1.6%, p = 0.006) and during work hours (-1.7%, p = 0.014) and a significant increase in number of breaks/sedentary hour on work days (0.64, p = 0.005) and during work hours (0.72, p = 0.015); there was a concurrent significant increase in light activity during work hours (1.5%, p = 0.012) and MVPA on work days (0.6%, p = 0.012).ConclusionsThis study explored novel ways to modify work practices to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour. Participatory workplace interventions can reduce sedentary time, increase the frequency of breaks and improve light activity and MVPA of office workers by using a variety of interventions.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTN12612000743864.
| S-EPMC3827087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To present a measure of effective workplace organizational policies, programs, and practices that focuses on working conditions and organizational facilitators of worker safety, health and well-being: the workplace integrated safety and health (WISH) assessment. METHODS:Development of this assessment used an iterative process involving a modified Delphi method, extensive literature reviews, and systematic cognitive testing. RESULTS:The assessment measures six core constructs identified as central to best practices for protecting and promoting worker safety, health and well-being: leadership commitment; participation; policies, programs, and practices that foster supportive working conditions; comprehensive and collaborative strategies; adherence to federal and state regulations and ethical norms; and data-driven change. CONCLUSIONS:The WISH Assessment holds promise as a tool that may inform organizational priority setting and guide research around causal pathways influencing implementation and outcomes related to these approaches.
| S-EPMC5943154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Warehousing and storage is an economically vital industry, with 1.2 million workers in 2020. The Fulfillment Center Intervention Study focuses on workers in fulfillment centers in the e-commerce segment of this industry. Fulfillment centers are a growing yet understudied work environment which provides a unique setting to further examine how working conditions and worker voice influence health. The Study involves a group-randomized controlled trial comparing participants in worksites randomized to launch the participatory intervention (Health and Well-Being Committees, or HaWCs) with participants working for the same firm in control sites. HaWCs serve as a new formal voice channel where a small group of frontline workers and supervisors solicit workers' concerns and ideas about safety (e.g., physical hazards), the psychosocial environment (e.g., how workers feel about their treatment at work), and work organization (e.g., workflow, training opportunities, scheduling) and then develop and implement improvement projects in response. The primary objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of the HaWC intervention and its effect on mental health outcomes and changes in the conditions of work within fulfillment centers, and to conduct a process evaluation of key contextual factors that support effective intervention implementation and sustained engagement. To our knowledge, this will be the first trial of a participatory intervention within a fulfillment center setting. Anticipated challenges include competing demands and company initiatives that may limit management support and high turnover. Should the intervention be shown to be feasible, the outcomes from this study will inform future randomized controlled trials of participatory interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT05199415) and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Protocol: 200800024).
| S-EPMC11257368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEmergency departments (EDs) are high-pressure environments where clinicians diagnose patients under significant constraints, including limited medical histories, severe time pressures, and frequent interruptions. Current ED care practices often inadequately support meaningful patient participation. Most interventions prioritize clinical workflow and health care provider communication, inadvertently overlooking patients' needs. Additionally, patient-facing technologies in EDs are typically developed without meaningful patient input, leading to solutions that may not effectively address patients' specific challenges. To enhance both patient-centered care practices and the diagnosis process in EDs, patient involvement in technology design is essential to ensure their needs during emergency care are understood and addressed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to invite ED patients to participatory design sessions, identify their needs during ED visits, and present potential design guidelines for technological interventions to address these needs.MethodsWe conducted 8 design sessions with 36 ED patients and caregivers to validate their needs and identify considerations for designing patient-centered interventions to improve diagnostic safety. We used 10 technological intervention ideas as probes for a needs evaluation of the study participants. Participants discussed the use cases of each intervention idea to assess their needs during the ED care process. We facilitated co-design activities with the participants to improve the technological intervention designs. We audio- and video-recorded the design sessions. We then analyzed session transcripts, field notes, and design sketches.ResultsOn the basis of ED patients' feedback and evaluation of our intervention designs, we found the 3 most preferred intervention ideas that addressed the common challenges ED patients experience. We also identified 4 themes of ED patients' needs: a feeling of inclusion in the ED care process, access to sources of medical information to enhance patient comprehension, addressing patient anxiety related to information overload and privacy concerns, and ensuring continuity in care and information. We interpreted these as insights for designing technological interventions for ED patients. Therefore, on the basis of the findings, we present five considerations for designing better patient-centered interventions in the ED care process: technology-based interventions should (1) address patients' dynamic needs to promote continuity in care; (2) consider the amount and timing of information that patients receive; (3) empower patients to be more active for better patient safety and care quality; (4) optimize human resources, depending on patients' needs; and (5) be designed with the consideration of patients' perspectives on implementation.ConclusionsThis study provides unique insights for designing technological interventions to support ED diagnostic processes. By inviting ED patients into the design process, we present unique insights into the diagnostic process and design considerations for designing novel technological interventions to enhance patient safety.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/55357.
| S-EPMC11888112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeople living with chronic illnesses are an increasingly large group. Research indicates that care and self-management should not only focus on the illness and problem-oriented aspects of these individuals' lives but also support them in recognizing and leveraging their personal strengths in daily life.ObjectiveThis paper presents the design and developmental process of MyStrengths, a mobile health (mHealth) app designed to help its users (people with chronic conditions) both find and make use of their personal strengths in their daily lives. Through 4 consecutive phases, this paper presents participant- and researcher-driven activities, discussions regarding design, and development of both the MyStrengths app and its content.MethodsDuring the 4 phases, we used a range of methods and activities, including (1) an idea-generating workshop aimed at creating ideas for strengths-supporting features with different stakeholders, including patients, caregivers, relatives, and designers (N=35); (2) research seminars with an international group of experts (N=6), in which the concept, theoretical background, and design ideas for the app were discussed; (3) a series of co-design workshops with people in the user group (N=22) aiming to create ideas for how to, in an engaging manner, design the app; and (4) in 4 developmental iterations, the app was evaluated by people in the user group (N=13). Content and strengths exercises were worked on and honed by the research team, the expert groups, and our internal editorial team during the entire developmental process.ResultsThe first phase found a wide range of stakeholder requirements to, and ideas for, strengths-focused mHealth apps. From reviewing literature during the second phase, we found a dearth of research on personal strengths with respect to people living with chronic illnesses. Activities during the third phase creatively provided numerous ideas and suggestions for engaging and gameful ways to develop and design the MyStrengths app. The final phase saw the output from all the earlier phases come together. Through multiple increasingly complete iterations of user evaluations testing and developing, the final prototype of the MyStrengths app was created.ConclusionsAlthough research supports the use of strengths-focused mHealth tools to support people living with chronic illnesses, there is little guidance as to how these tools and their content should be designed. Through all activities, we found great support among participating users for strengths-focused apps, and we can consider such apps to be both appropriate and valuable. This paper illustrates how combining a range of user-, researcher-, literature-, and designer-based methods can contribute to creating mHealth tools to support people with chronic illnesses to find and use more of their own personal strengths.
| S-EPMC7414410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The field of biogerontology has made great strides towards understanding the biological processes underlying aging, and the time is ripe to look towards applying this knowledge to the pursuit of aging interventions. Identification of safe, inexpensive, and non-invasive interventions that slow the aging process and promote healthy aging could have a significant impact on quality of life and health care expenditures for the aged. While there is a plethora of supplements and interventions on the market that purport to slow aging, the evidence to validate such claims is generally lacking. Here we describe the development of an aging interventions testing program funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to test candidate interventions in a model system. The development of this program highlights the challenges of long-term intervention studies and provides approaches to cope with the stringent requirements of a multi-site testing program.
| S-EPMC2585647 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGenerative participatory design (PD) may help in developing electronic health (eHealth) interventions. PD is characterized by the involvement of all stakeholders in creative activities. This is different from the traditional user-centered design, where users are less involved. When looking at PD from a research through design perspective, it is important to summarize the reasons for choosing a certain form of generative PD to further develop its methodology. However, the scientific literature is currently unclear about which forms of PD are used to develop eHealth and which arguments are used to substantiate the decision to use a certain form of generative PD.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the reporting and substantiation of generative PD methodologies in empirical eHealth studies published in scientific journals to further develop PD methodology in the field of eHealth.MethodsA systematic literature review following the Cochrane guidelines was conducted in several databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, Web of Science, and CINAHL EBSCOhost). Data were extracted on the recruitment and management of stakeholders, the use of tools, and the use of outcome measures.ResultsOf the 3131 studies initially identified, 69 were selected for qualitative synthesis. The reporting was very variable, depending to a large extent on whether the study stated that reporting on the PD process was a major aim. The different levels of reporting and substantiation of the choices of a recruitment strategy, stakeholder management, and tools and outcome measures are presented. Only a few authors explicitly used arguments directly related to PD guiding principles such as democratic, mutual learning, tacit and latent knowledge, and collective creativity. Even though PD principles were not always explicitly discussed in the method descriptions of the studies, they were implicitly present, mostly in the descriptions of the use of PD tools. The arguments used to substantiate the choices made in stakeholder management, PD tools, and the type of outcome measures adopted point to the involvement of PD principles.ConclusionsStudies that have used a PD research methodology to develop eHealth primarily substantiate the choice of tools made and much less the use of stakeholders and outcome measures.
| S-EPMC7215492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundParticipation from clinician stakeholders can improve the design and implementation of health care interventions. Participatory design methods, especially co-design methods, comprise stakeholder-led design activities that are time-consuming. Competing work demands and increasing workloads make clinicians' commitments to typical participatory methods even harder. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated barriers to clinician participation in such interventions.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore a web-based participatory design approach to conduct economical, electronic co-design (ECO-design) workshops with primary care clinicians.MethodsWe adapted traditional in-person co-design workshops to web-based delivery and adapted co-design workshop series to fit within a single 1-hour session. We applied the ECO-design workshop approach to codevelop feedback interventions regarding abnormal test result follow-up in primary care. We conducted ECO-design workshops with primary care clinicians at a medical center in Southern Texas, using videoconferencing software. Each workshop focused on one of three types of feedback interventions: conversation guide, email template, and dashboard prototype. We paired electronic materials and software features to facilitate participant interactions, prototyping, and data collection. The workshop protocol included four main activities: problem identification, solution generation, prototyping, and debriefing. Two facilitators were assigned to each workshop and one researcher resolved technical problems. After the workshops, our research team met to debrief and evaluate workshops.ResultsA total of 28 primary care clinicians participated in our ECO-design workshops. We completed 4 parallel workshops, each with 5-10 participants. We conducted traditional analyses and generated a clinician persona (ie, representative description) and user interface prototypes. We also formulated recommendations for future ECO-design workshop recruitment, technology, facilitation, and data collection. Overall, our adapted workshops successfully enabled primary care clinicians to participate without increasing their workload, even during a pandemic.ConclusionsECO-design workshops are viable, economical alternatives to traditional approaches. This approach fills a need for efficient methods to involve busy clinicians in the design of health care interventions.
| S-EPMC9539640 | biostudies-literature