Jennifer K Coffeng1, Ingrid J M Hendriksen, Willem van Mechelen, Cécile R L Boot. 1. From the Department of Public and Occupational Health (Ms Coffeng and van Mechelen, and Dr Boot), EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center (VUmc), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Body@Work TNO-VUmc (Ms Coffeng and van Mechelen, and Drs Hendriksen and Boot), Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; and TNO (Expert Center Life Style) (Dr Hendriksen), Leiden, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of implementation of a social and physical environmental intervention and to explore differences regarding this process between both interventions. METHODS: Context, recruitment, dose delivered, fidelity, reach, dose received, satisfaction, and implementation barriers were investigated. RESULTS: Reach for the social and physical environmental interventions ranged from 45% to 76%. Mean satisfaction for the social environmental intervention was 6.0 and for the physical environmental intervention was 7.0. Generally, the results were higher for team leaders than for employees. Furthermore, the implementation of the physical intervention was better at the departments that additionally received the social intervention. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were better implemented on the level of the team leader than that of the employees. Furthermore, the combined interventions received higher evaluation scores. To increase satisfaction and participation, attention should be paid to both employees and team leaders during implementation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of implementation of a social and physical environmental intervention and to explore differences regarding this process between both interventions. METHODS: Context, recruitment, dose delivered, fidelity, reach, dose received, satisfaction, and implementation barriers were investigated. RESULTS: Reach for the social and physical environmental interventions ranged from 45% to 76%. Mean satisfaction for the social environmental intervention was 6.0 and for the physical environmental intervention was 7.0. Generally, the results were higher for team leaders than for employees. Furthermore, the implementation of the physical intervention was better at the departments that additionally received the social intervention. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were better implemented on the level of the team leader than that of the employees. Furthermore, the combined interventions received higher evaluation scores. To increase satisfaction and participation, attention should be paid to both employees and team leaders during implementation.
Authors: Luke Wolfenden; Sharni Goldman; Fiona G Stacey; Alice Grady; Melanie Kingsland; Christopher M Williams; John Wiggers; Andrew Milat; Chris Rissel; Adrian Bauman; Margaret M Farrell; France Légaré; Ali Ben Charif; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; Rebecca K Hodder; Jannah Jones; Debbie Booth; Benjamin Parmenter; Tim Regan; Sze Lin Yoong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-14
Authors: Jennifer K Coffeng; Cécile R L Boot; Saskia F A Duijts; Jos W R Twisk; Willem van Mechelen; Ingrid J M Hendriksen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Margriet A G Formanoy; Elise Dusseldorp; Jennifer K Coffeng; Iven Van Mechelen; Cecile R L Boot; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Erwin C P M Tak Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Roosmarijn M C Schelvis; Noortje M Wiezer; Birgitte M Blatter; Joost A G M van Genabeek; Karen M Oude Hengel; Ernst T Bohlmeijer; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: R A Kraaijeveld; F G Schaafsma; S M Ketelaar; C R L Boot; U Bültmann; J R Anema Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-03-12 Impact factor: 3.015