Submit to IJERPH Review for IJERPH Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions

Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (ISSN 1660-4601). This special issue belongs to the section "Occupational Safety and Health".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 January 2022) | Viewed by 49854

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Evangelia Demou

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G3 7HR, UK
Interests: development; implementation and evaluation of workplace interventions; practice improvement; health promotion in the workplace

Dr. Maria Karanika-Murray

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK
Interests: determinants of workplace health and well-being; management of workplace health; job design and organisational climate; organizational health interventions; intervention evaluation methodology

Dr. Vaughan Parsons

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Centre for Musculoskeletal Health and Work, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Interests: Workplace intervention development; Impact of hidden conditions and disabilities on work, management and execution of health research in workplace settings; Working with patient and public involvement representatives in research.

Dr. Elaine Wainwright

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Department for Health, Centre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
Interests: Work as a health outcome; Enabling people living with ongoing pain to have sustainable working lives; Lifespan perspectives on occupation in support of good health; Use of qualitative methodologies to contribute to improving wellbeing at work.

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The workplace is a major setting that structures much of our daily lives and impacts on the health of the population and on the productivity of our organisations. Work and employment are key social determinants of health and social inequalities and are economically and socially important to individuals, communities and society as a whole. We know that good-quality work has benefits for health and wellbeing and that the organisation and structure of work and the workplace environment itself can directly impact (both positively and negatively) on physical and mental health as well as performance and productivity. At the same time, the nature of work (including job roles) and that of the workplace are rapidly changing. The current pandemic, along with agile and mobile working, technological advancements and automation and precarious employment, to name a few, are factors that have all contributed to short- or long-term changes to the nature and quality of work. These factors challenge the traditional conceptions and definition of work and workplaces but can also bring new opportunities and constraints for workplace health promotion. There is increasing recognition among employers that unhealthy practices and work environments can adversely affect the health and productivity of their employees. Therefore, workplaces, as physical and/or virtual and social settings, have the potential to create opportunities and the space for health monitoring and health promotion. Work organisations are conduits for population health, and workplace interventions can access large and relatively stable working-age cohorts, provide an opportunity to reach particular segments of that population and harness powerful setting-based social and cultural dynamics to bring upon positive change for workforces and the society.

We invite papers addressing topics on the development, implementation and/or evaluation of health-focused workplace interventions. Papers can be conceptual or empirical, but we especially welcome studies combining a high academic standard with a practical focus on evidence-based solutions for specific workplace problems, health issues and industries, as well as solutions that can be transferable across sectors. The aim of this Special Issue is to document how the field of workplace health interventions is moving forward. Therefore, submissions that build on and advance the latest knowledge and practice in the field are encouraged.

Some areas of interest include:

What are the key future research priorities for workplace interventions?
Measuring the cost-effectiveness and cost–benefits of workplace interventions—building an economic evaluation framework for trial designs
Developing systems-informed workplace interventions
Implementation science: using evidence from workplace interventions to change practice
The role of process evaluation in workplace intervention research
Ethical considerations when designing and delivering workplace research
Opportunities and challenges in setting up and testing workplace interventions in different workplace settings (including gig/platform workers)
Scoping and designing novel workplace interventions to support workers with hidden conditions and disabilities
Designing different approaches to delivery health surveillance interventions in the workplace setting (e.g., dermatitis or respiratory surveillance)

Dr. Evangalia Demou
Dr. Maria Karanika-Murray
Dr. Vaughan Parsons
Dr. Elaine Wainwright
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2500 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

Workplace-based health interventions, organisational interventions, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace health promotion, occupational, evidence-based, health care costs, organisational change, intervention evaluation, process evaluation, health and well-being, performance, productivity, research-practice

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (11 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

14 pages, 1059 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Crossover of Work Engagement: The Moderating Role of Agreeableness

by Konstantinos Chiotis and George Michaelides

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(13), 7622; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137622 - 22 Jun 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2353

Abstract

Work engagement can cross over from one individual to another, and this process may depend on several factors, such as the work context or individual differences. With this study, we argue that agreeableness, one of the Big five personality measures that characterized empathetic, can be instrumental in the crossover process. Specifically, we hypothesize that agreeableness can facilitate this process so that engagement of an actor can more easily cross over to their partner when either of them or both have high agreeableness. To evaluate our hypotheses, we implemented an intervention to the working schedules of 74 participants for two weeks. The intervention involved pairing participants to work together so that to create dyads with varying levels of dissimilarity. The results from a multilevel regression model indicate that there is a crossover effect and partner’s work engagement can be transferred to actor after a two-week collaboration. This effect is further intensified if either one or both members in the dyad are characterized by high levels of agreeableness. These findings help to decode the mechanisms underlying the crossover process and illustrate how to ideally coordinate work dyads to take advantage of the crossover effect and maximize employee engagement. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1146 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Development, Implementation, and Feasibility of a Circadian, Light, and Sleep Skills Program for Shipboard Military Personnel (CLASS-SM)

by Elizabeth M. Harrison, Emily A. Schmied, Suzanne L. Hurtado, Alexandra P. Easterling and Gena L. Glickman

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 3093; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19053093 - 6 Mar 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2659

Abstract

Service members face unique barriers to sufficient and high quality sleep. In the present study, a circadian, light, and sleep skills program for shipboard military personnel (CLASS-SM) was designed to encourage and inform strategies that support optimal sleep and circadian health in the context of those barriers. Phase 1 included program development and refinement via an iterative formative evaluation, including structured interviews with service members and feedback from veterans and experts, resulting in further tailoring to the population. In Phase 2, the highly tailored program was administered to shipboard personnel (n = 55), and acceptability indicators were measured. Sleep- and circadian-related knowledge (pre- and post-program) and the perceived relevance of, and satisfaction with, program content (post-program) were assessed. Before the intervention, most individuals were unaware that 7–9 h of sleep is recommended (72%) and had little understanding of the physiological effects of light; however, knowledge scores increased significantly post-program, from 51% to 88% correct (p < 0.0001). Reception was positive, with high reported satisfaction and relevance. Most individuals reported that they learned something new (89%), planned to use one or more learned strategies (100%), and intended to share learned information with others (85%); the physiological effects of light and circadian rhythms were the content areas most frequently reported as new and useful. The results demonstrate the need for, and feasibility of, the delivery of this program in operational environments. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1971 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Cost–Benefit Evaluation of an Organizational-Level Intervention Program for Decreasing Sickness Absence among Public Sector Employees in Sweden

by Jonathan Severin, Mikael Svensson and Magnus Akerstrom

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(5), 2998; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052998 - 4 Mar 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2991

Abstract

Work-related illnesses create a vast economic burden for employers and society. Organizational-level workplace interventions are recommended to prevent these illnesses, but the knowledge about the economic benefits of such interventions is scarce. The study aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of an organizational-level workplace program for decreasing sickness absence. The program contained a monetary support approach (MSA) and an approach combining monetary and facilitator support (FSA). Cost–benefit analyses were used, where the results were compared to those of business as usual. Economic benefits of reduced sickness absence were based on the value of reduced production loss and direct sick pay costs, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the results. The program had a positive net benefit when measuring productivity loss, where the FSA had a net benefit and the MSA had a net loss. A negative net benefit was derived when measuring direct sick pay costs. The intervention effect on sickness absence affected the net benefit the most. This program was economically beneficial in terms of reducing the productivity loss, but not of reducing direct sick pay costs connected to short-term sickness absence. Using evidence-based methods is essential for increasing the long-term net benefit of organizational-level workplace interventions. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 1186 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Mental Health Promotion and Intervention in Occupational Settings: Protocol for a Pilot Study of the MENTUPP Intervention

by Ella Arensman, Cliodhna O’Connor, Caleb Leduc, Eve Griffin, Grace Cully, Doireann Ní Dhálaigh, Carolyn Holland, Chantal Van Audenhove, Evelien Coppens, Fotini Tsantila, Victoria Ross, Birgit Aust, Arlinda Cerga Pashoja, Johanna Cresswell-Smith, Laura Cox, Lars de Winter, Naim Fanaj, Birgit A. Greiner, Ulrich Hegerl, Sharna Mathieu, Ana Moreno-Alcázar, Wendy Orchard, Charlotte Paterson, György Purebl, Gentiana Qirjako, Hanna Reich and Paul Corcoran Show full author list Hide full author list

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(2), 947; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020947 - 15 Jan 2022

Cited by 17 | Viewed by 8859

Abstract

Depression and anxiety are the most prevalent mental health difficulties in the EU, causing immense suffering and costing the global economy EUR 1 trillion each year in lost productivity. Employees in construction, health and information and communications technology have an elevated risk of mental health difficulties. Most mental health interventions for the workplace have been targeted at larger companies and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are often overlooked despite most people being employed in SMEs. The MENTUPP intervention aims to improve mental health and wellbeing and reduce depression, anxiety, and suicidal behaviour. The MENTUPP project involves the development, implementation, and evaluation of a multilevel intervention targeting both clinical and non-clinical mental health issues and combating the stigma of mental (ill-)health, with a specific focus on SMEs. The intervention is underpinned by a framework of how to create a mentally healthy workplace by employing an integrated approach and has been informed by several systematic reviews designed to understand organisational mental health interventions and a consultation survey with key experts in the area. The intervention is facilitated through the MENTUPP Hub, an online platform that presents interactive psychoeducational materials, toolkits, and links to additional resources in an accessible and user-friendly manner. This paper presents the pilot study protocol for delivering the MENTUPP intervention in eight European countries and Australia. Each intervention country will aim to recruit at least 23 participants in 1–3 SMEs in one of the three high-risk sectors. The central aim of the pilot study will be to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and uptake of the MENTUPP intervention across the target SMEs. The findings will contribute to devising the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the MENTUPP intervention. Findings from this study will also be used to inform the optimisation phase of the MENTUPP intervention which will aim to improve the materials and the implementation of the intervention as well as enhancing the evaluation strategy which will be employed for the cRCT. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 1081 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Co-Creating an Occupational Health Intervention within the Construction Industry in Sweden: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Process and Output

by Emma Cedstrand, Helle Mølsted Alvesson, Hanna Augustsson, Theo Bodin, Erika Bodin, Anna Nyberg and Gun Johansson

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(24), 12872; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412872 - 7 Dec 2021

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 3726

Abstract

One way to prevent work-related stress, is to implement primary occupational health interventions aimed at improving the psychosocial work environment. However, such interventions have shown a limited effect, often due to implementation failure and poor contextual fit. Co-creation, where researchers, together with end-users and other relevant stakeholders, develop the intervention is increasingly encouraged. However, few studies have evaluated the effects of co-created interventions, and participants’ experience of the co-creation process. This is one of the first studies evaluating stakeholder perceptions of co-creating an occupational health intervention. We applied a thematic analysis, with data from 12 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders involved in the co-creation. Our results show that the respondents, in general, were satisfied with engaging in the co-creation, and they reported an increased awareness regarding risk factors of stress and how these should be handled. Additionally, the respondents described trust in the intervention activities and a good fit into the context. The study indicates that co-creating occupational health interventions can enhance the implementation and the contextual fit. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 340 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Using Co-Production to Develop “Sit Less at Work” Interventions in a Range of Organisations

by Kelly Mackenzie, Elizabeth Such, Paul Norman and Elizabeth Goyder

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(15), 7751; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157751 - 22 Jul 2021

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2924

Abstract

Prolonged periods of sitting are associated with negative health outcomes, so the increase in sedentary jobs is a public health concern. Evaluation of interventions to reduce workplace sitting have suggested that participatory approaches may be more effective. This paper describes the use of co-production in four diverse organisations. Workshops with staff in each organisation were conducted to develop an organisation-specific strategy. The first workshop involved creative activities to encourage participants to develop innovative suggestions. The second workshop then developed a feasible and acceptable action plan. An ecological approach was used to consider behaviour change determinants at a range of different levels including intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational, and environmental-level factors. 41 staff volunteered for workshops (seven in a small business, 16 in a charity, 15 in a local authority, and three in a large corporation). Of those, 27 were able to attend the first workshops and 16 were able to attend the second. Whilst there were some similarities across organisations, the smaller organisations developed a more tailored and innovative strategy than large organisations where there were more barriers to change and a more diverse workforce. Co-production resulted in bespoke interventions, tailored for different organisational contexts, maximising their potential feasibility and acceptability. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

14 pages, 1557 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Service Evaluation of the Military HeadFIT Initiative: An Implementation Study

by Amber McKenzie, Bethany Croak, Laura Rafferty, Neil Greenberg and Sharon A. M. Stevelink

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(14), 7375; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147375 - 9 Jul 2021

Viewed by 2770

Abstract

(1) Background: UK Armed Forces personnel provide first response, support and protection during national and international disasters and conflicts. They thus have a psychologically challenging role which requires them to maintain a good state of mental health and wellbeing. HeadFIT is a preventative initiative developed to help foster mental fitness through various self-help tools and resources online including techniques to de-stress and increase drive. This paper reports on an independent service evaluation of HeadFIT to examine feasibility and acceptability among Ministry of Defence (MOD) personnel. (2) Methods: Qualitative interviews were held with the HeadFIT beneficiaries, including military personnel and civil servants. The beneficiaries provided feedback on HeadFIT through questionnaires and interviews, and website traffic data were also collected. Qualitative data were analysed using framework analysis. (3) Results: Beneficiaries generally reported positive views on the HeadFIT initiative, with most agreeing that the tools could support them to foster their mental fitness. However, concerns were raised around the uptake of HeadFIT and participants suggested methods to improve usability. (4) Conclusions: Several recommendations were made to improve the resources, usability, uptake, and implementation and communication of HeadFIT. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 510 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Understanding the Implementation of “Sit Less at Work” Interventions in Three Organisations: A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation

by Kelly Mackenzie, Elizabeth Such, Paul Norman and Elizabeth Goyder

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(14), 7361; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147361 - 9 Jul 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3379

Abstract

Long periods of workplace sitting are associated with poor health outcomes. Interventions to reduce workplace sitting time have had variable impacts, the reasons for which require further investigation. In this paper, we report on a process evaluation aiming to determine the intervention fidelity of three “sit less at work” interventions and to explore barriers and enablers to implementation, using a mixed methods “before and after” intervention study design. Convenience samples of staff were recruited from three diverse organisations to participate in pre- and post-intervention online questionnaires, objective measures of sitting time (using activPAL3™ devices) and post-intervention focus groups. Intervention implementers and key personnel were also recruited to participate in post-intervention focus groups and interviews. The process evaluation found that none of the interventions were implemented as intended, with no consistent reductions in sitting time. Contextual and organisational cultural barriers included workload pressures and the social norms of sitting, competing priorities, lack of management buy-in, and perceptions of where the responsibility for behaviour change should come from. To ensure effective implementation of future initiatives, deeper organisational-level change, requiring buy-in from all levels of management and staff, may be needed to shift organisational culture and associated social norms. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 1149 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Participatory Development Process of Two Human Dimension Intervention Programs to Foster Physical Fitness and Psychological Health and Well-Being in Wildland Firefighting

by Caleb Leduc, Sabir I. Giga, Ian J. Fletcher, Michelle Young and Sandra C. Dorman

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(13), 7118; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18137118 - 2 Jul 2021

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3306

Abstract

Intervention programs designed, delivered, and evaluated by and within organizations are a critical component in the promotion of employee health and well-being and in the prevention of occupational injury. Critical for transference of findings across complex occupational settings is a clearly articulated development process, a reliance on and evaluation of underlying theoretical foundations, and the inclusion of relevant outcomes emerging out of participatory action processes. To date, there have been no documented efforts outlining the development, implementation, or evaluation of human dimension intervention programs targeting wildland firefighters. The purpose of this paper is to outline the development of two collaborative and participatory intervention programs, targeting wildland firefighters’ physical and psychological health and well-being. Two human dimension intervention programs were developed in a collaborative, iterative and participatory process following the Context–Content–Process–Outcomes Framework. First, a physical fitness training intervention program was designed to maintain wildland firefighter’s physical fitness levels and attenuate risk of injury. Second, a psychosocial education intervention program was developed to mitigate the impact of psychosocial risk factors, foster work engagement, and decrease job stress. The current study provides evidence for the capacity of researchers and organizations to collaboratively develop practical programs primed for implementation and delivery. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

26 pages, 8371 KiB

Open AccessReview

COVID-19 Prevention and Control Measures in Workplace Settings: A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis

by Carolyn Ingram, Vicky Downey, Mark Roe, Yanbing Chen, Mary Archibald, Kadri-Ann Kallas, Jaspal Kumar, Peter Naughton, Cyril Onwuelazu Uteh, Alejandro Rojas-Chaves, Shibu Shrestha, Shiraz Syed, Fionn Cléirigh Büttner, Conor Buggy and Carla Perrotta

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(15), 7847; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157847 - 24 Jul 2021

Cited by 78 | Viewed by 11349

Abstract

Workplaces can be high-risk environments for SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and subsequent community transmission. Identifying, understanding, and implementing effective workplace SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control (IPC) measures is critical to protect workers, their families, and communities. A rapid review and meta-analysis were conducted to synthesize evidence assessing the effectiveness of COVID-19 IPC measures implemented in global workplace settings through April 2021. Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of workplace COVID-19 IPC measures. The included studies comprised varying empirical designs and occupational settings. Measures of interest included surveillance measures, outbreak investigations, environmental adjustments, personal protective equipment (PPE), changes in work arrangements, and worker education. Sixty-one studies from healthcare, nursing home, meatpacking, manufacturing, and office settings were included, accounting for ~280,000 employees based in Europe, Asia, and North America. Meta-analyses showed that combined IPC measures resulted in lower employee COVID-19 positivity rates (0.2% positivity; 95% CI 0–0.4%) than single measures such as asymptomatic PCR testing (1.7%; 95% CI 0.9–2.9%) and universal masking (24%; 95% CI 3.4–55.5%). Modelling studies showed that combinations of (i) timely and widespread contact tracing and case isolation, (ii) facilitating smaller worker cohorts, and (iii) effective use of PPE can reduce workplace transmission. Comprehensive COVID-19 IPC measures incorporating swift contact tracing and case isolation, PPE, and facility zoning can effectively prevent workplace outbreaks. Masking alone should not be considered sufficient protection from SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in the workplace. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

15 pages, 1901 KiB

Open AccessStudy Protocol

Impact Model-Based Physical-Activity Promotion at the Workplace: Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study in Germany (KomRueBer Study)

by Andrea Schaller and Carina Hoffmann

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(11), 6074; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116074 - 4 Jun 2021

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3254

Abstract

There is great potential for the implementation of physical-activity measures at the workplace, especially in smaller companies. The present paper describes the study protocol for evaluating an impact-model-based multicomponent intervention promoting physical activity at the workplace within a cross-company network. The evaluation is based on a logic model focusing on outputs and short-term outcomes for the purpose of physical-activity promotion, physical-activity-related health competence, and knowledge about physical activity. A mixed-methods approach is applied. The quantitative evaluation is conducted as a natural design, and combines a retrospective evaluation of the acceptance, usage, and satisfaction (output) at the end of the measures, and two surveys that capture physical activity, knowledge about physical activity, and physical-activity-related health competence (outcome) of the employees in the form of a trend study. The qualitative evaluation comprises semistructured interviews to investigate knowledge of the existence of and attitude towards the content of the multicomponent intervention and the study. The challenges evaluating complex interventions are widely debated. Through an impact-model-based approach, the study will provide a promising framework for the systematic evaluation of a multicomponent intervention promoting physical activity. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

The Development and Evaluation of Workplace Interventions

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (11 papers)

Research

Review

Other

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI