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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |