Cargando…

Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers

Objective To evaluate the implementation process of a workers’ health surveillance (WHS) program in a Dutch meat processing company. Methods Workers from five plants were eligible to participate in the WHS program. The program consisted of four evaluative components and an intervention component. Qu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Holland, Berry J., Brouwer, Sandra, de Boer, Michiel R., Reneman, Michiel F., Soer, Remko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591347/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9657-y
_version_ 1783262696188149760
author van Holland, Berry J.
Brouwer, Sandra
de Boer, Michiel R.
Reneman, Michiel F.
Soer, Remko
author_facet van Holland, Berry J.
Brouwer, Sandra
de Boer, Michiel R.
Reneman, Michiel F.
Soer, Remko
author_sort van Holland, Berry J.
collection PubMed
description Objective To evaluate the implementation process of a workers’ health surveillance (WHS) program in a Dutch meat processing company. Methods Workers from five plants were eligible to participate in the WHS program. The program consisted of four evaluative components and an intervention component. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate seven process aspects. Data were gathered by interviews with stakeholders, participant questionnaires, and from registries of the company and occupational health service. Results Two recruitment strategies were used: open invitation or automatic participation. Of the 986 eligible workers, 305 participated in the program. Average reach was 53 %. Two out of five program components could not be assessed on dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. If components were assessable, 85–100 % of the components was delivered, 66–100 % of the components was received by participants, and fidelity was 100 %. Participants were satisfied with the WHS program (mean score 7.6). Contextual factors that facilitated implementation were among others societal developments and management support. Factors that formed barriers were program novelty and delayed follow-up. Conclusion The WHS program was well received by participants. Not all participants were offered the same number of program components, and not all components were performed according to protocol. Deviation from protocol is an indication of program failure and may affect program effectiveness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5591347
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55913472017-09-25 Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers van Holland, Berry J. Brouwer, Sandra de Boer, Michiel R. Reneman, Michiel F. Soer, Remko J Occup Rehabil Article Objective To evaluate the implementation process of a workers’ health surveillance (WHS) program in a Dutch meat processing company. Methods Workers from five plants were eligible to participate in the WHS program. The program consisted of four evaluative components and an intervention component. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate seven process aspects. Data were gathered by interviews with stakeholders, participant questionnaires, and from registries of the company and occupational health service. Results Two recruitment strategies were used: open invitation or automatic participation. Of the 986 eligible workers, 305 participated in the program. Average reach was 53 %. Two out of five program components could not be assessed on dose delivered, dose received and fidelity. If components were assessable, 85–100 % of the components was delivered, 66–100 % of the components was received by participants, and fidelity was 100 %. Participants were satisfied with the WHS program (mean score 7.6). Contextual factors that facilitated implementation were among others societal developments and management support. Factors that formed barriers were program novelty and delayed follow-up. Conclusion The WHS program was well received by participants. Not all participants were offered the same number of program components, and not all components were performed according to protocol. Deviation from protocol is an indication of program failure and may affect program effectiveness. Springer US 2016-07-30 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5591347/ /pubmed/27475445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9657-y Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
van Holland, Berry J.
Brouwer, Sandra
de Boer, Michiel R.
Reneman, Michiel F.
Soer, Remko
Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title_full Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title_fullStr Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title_full_unstemmed Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title_short Process Evaluation of a Workers’ Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers
title_sort process evaluation of a workers’ health surveillance program for meat processing workers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591347/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27475445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10926-016-9657-y
work_keys_str_mv AT vanhollandberryj processevaluationofaworkershealthsurveillanceprogramformeatprocessingworkers
AT brouwersandra processevaluationofaworkershealthsurveillanceprogramformeatprocessingworkers
AT deboermichielr processevaluationofaworkershealthsurveillanceprogramformeatprocessingworkers
AT renemanmichielf processevaluationofaworkershealthsurveillanceprogramformeatprocessingworkers
AT soerremko processevaluationofaworkershealthsurveillanceprogramformeatprocessingworkers