Process evaluation of the 'Grip on Health' intervention in general and occupational health practice.

BACKGROUND: For working patients with a lower socioeconomic position, health complaints often result from a combination of problems on multiple life domains. To prevent long-term health complaints and absence from work, it is crucial for general and occupational health professionals to adopt a broad perspective on health and to collaborate when necessary. This study aimed to evaluate how the 'Grip on Health' intervention is implemented in general and occupational health practice to address multi-domain problems and to promote interprofessional collaboration. METHOD: A process evaluation was performed among 28 general and occupational health professionals, who were trained and implemented the Grip on Health intervention during a six-month period. The 'Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations' was used to evaluate facilitators and barriers for implementing Grip on Health. Data included three group interviews with 17 professionals, a questionnaire and five individual interviews. RESULTS: While most health professionals were enthusiastic about the Grip on Health intervention, its implementation was hindered by contextual factors. Barriers in the socio-political context consisted of legal rules and regulations around sickness and disability, professional protocols for interprofessional collaboration, and the Covid-19 pandemic. On the organizational level, lack of consultation time was the main barrier. Facilitators were found on the level of the intervention and the health professional. For instance, professionals described how the intervention supports addressing multi-domain problems and has created awareness of work in each other's healthcare domain. They recognized the relevance of the intervention for a broad target group and experienced benefits of its use. The intervention period was, nevertheless, too short to determine the outcomes of Grip on Health. CONCLUSION: The Grip on Health intervention can be used to address problems on multiple life domains and to stimulate interprofessional collaboration. Visualizing multi-domain problems appeared especially helpful to guide patients with a lower socioeconomic position, and a joint training of general and occupational health professionals promoted their mutual awareness and familiarity. For a wider implementation, stakeholders on all levels, including the government and professional associations, should reflect on ways to address contextual barriers to promote a broad perspective on health as well as on collaborative work.

Evaluating the implementation process of a participatory organizational level occupational health intervention in schools.

BACKGROUND: The importance of process evaluations in examining how and why interventions are (un) successful is increasingly recognized. Process evaluations mainly studied the implementation process and the quality of the implementation (fidelity). However, in adopting this approach for participatory organizational level occupational health interventions, important aspects such as context and participants perceptions are missing. Our objective was to systematically describe the implementation process of a participatory organizational level occupational health intervention aimed at reducing work stress and increasing vitality in two schools by applying a framework that covers aspects of the intervention and its implementation as well as the context and participants perceptions. METHODS: A program theory was developed, describing the requirements for successful implementation. Each requirement was operationalized by making use of the framework, covering: initiation, communication, participation, fidelity, reach, communication, satisfaction, management support, targeting, delivery, exposure, culture, conditions, readiness for change and perceptions. The requirements were assessed by quantitative and qualitative data, collected at 12 and 24 months after baseline in both schools (questionnaire and interviews) or continuously (logbooks). RESULTS: The intervention consisted of a needs assessment phase and a phase of implementing intervention activities. The needs assessment phase was implemented successfully in school A, but not in school B where participation and readiness for change were insufficient. In the second phase, several intervention activities were implemented at school A, whereas this was only partly the case in school B (delivery). In both schools, however, participants felt not involved in the choice of intervention activities (targeting, participation, support), resulting in a negative perception of and only partial exposure to the intervention activities. Conditions, culture and events hindered the implementation of intervention activities in both schools. CONCLUSIONS: The framework helped us to understand why the implementation process was not successful. It is therefore considered of added value for the evaluation of implementation processes in participatory organizational level interventions, foremost because of the context and mental models dimensions. However, less demanding methods for doing detailed process evaluations need to be developed. This can only be done if we know more about the most important process components and this study contributes to that knowledge base. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR3284 .

Design of the Bottom-up Innovation project--a participatory, primary preventive, organizational level intervention on work-related stress and well-being for workers in Dutch vocational education.

BACKGROUND: In the educational sector job demands have intensified, while job resources remained the same. A prolonged disbalance between demands and resources contributes to lowered vitality and heightened need for recovery, eventually resulting in burnout, sickness absence and retention problems. Until now stress management interventions in education focused mostly on strengthening the individual capacity to cope with stress, instead of altering the sources of stress at work at the organizational level. These interventions have been only partly effective in influencing burnout and well-being. Therefore, the "Bottom-up Innovation" project tests a two-phased participatory, primary preventive organizational level intervention (i.e. a participatory action approach) that targets and engages all workers in the primary process of schools. It is hypothesized that participating in the project results in increased occupational self-efficacy and organizational efficacy. The central research question: is an organization focused stress management intervention based on participatory action effective in reducing the need for recovery and enhancing vitality in school employees in comparison to business as usual? METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a controlled trial with mixed methods and three measurement moments: baseline (quantitative measures), six months and 18 months (quantitative and qualitative measures). At first follow-up short term effects of taking part in the needs assessment (phase 1) will be determined. At second follow-up the long term effects of taking part in the needs assessment will be determined as well as the effects of implemented tailored workplace solutions (phase 2). A process evaluation based on quantitative and qualitative data will shed light on whether, how and why the intervention (does not) work(s). DISCUSSION: "Bottom-up Innovation" is a combined effort of the educational sector, intervention providers and researchers. Results will provide insight into (1) the relation between participating in the intervention and occupational and organizational self-efficacy, (2) how an improved balance between job demands and job resources might affect need for recovery and vitality, in the short and long term, from an organizational perspective, and (3) success and fail factors for implementation of an organizational intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NTR3284.

[New paths to interprofessional collaboration: collaboration between assistant practitioners and practice nurses in general and occupational health care]. / Nieuwe wegen naar arbocuratieve samenwerking: samen werken van praktijkondersteuners huis- en bedrijfsarts bij multiproblematiek.

Background: To this date, there is little to no interprofessional collaboration between professionals in general and occupational health care in the Netherlands. Where earlier initiatives for improvement focused on general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs), we examine the role that professionals working under task delegation of GPs and OPs can play in addressing problems on multiple life domains as well as in interprofessional collaboration.Methods: We conducted three focus group interviews with 7 assistant practitioners (APs) in general practice, 11 practice nurses (PNs) in general practice and 8 APs in occupational health practice.Results: All PNs and APs in our study are confronted with multi-domain problems and see a role for themselves in addressing these problems. Moreover, in case of multi-domain problems, they acknowledge the relevance of interprofessional collaboration to provide good care. At this moment, however, there is practically no collaboration at the level of PNs and APs. Challenges are found in the formal task delegation and role identity of the APs in occupational health practice, unfamiliarity and prejudices among especially general practice PNs and APs regarding occupational health care, and practical barriers as privacy laws and reachability.Conclusion: Interprofessional collaboration among PNs and APs in general and occupational health care is possible, provided that a solution is found for fundamental and practical challenges. Potential solutions are to shift the focus from sharing medical information to communicating about the needs of working patients to function healthily on multiple life domains, to address interprofessional collaboration in educations, to adapt consultation protocols to include work and to organize joint meetings between professionals in general and occupational health practice. Finally, addressing structural barriers such as privacy laws and financing requires political action.