Maartje C Bakhuys Roozeboom1,2, Noortje M Wiezer1, Cécile R L Boot2, Paulien M Bongers1,2, Roosmarijn M C Schelvis3. 1. Department of Healthy Living, Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Schipholweg 77, 2316 ZL Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam UMC, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. HR Department, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738/3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Aim: Intervention mapping (IM) is a method to systematically design interventions that is applied regularly within the public health domain. This study investigates whether IM is effectively used within the occupational safety and health domain as well. Specifically, this study explores the relation between the fidelity regarding the use of the IM protocol for intervention development, the implementation process and the effectiveness of the occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted including articles on development, implementation, and effects of occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions that were developed according to the IM-protocol. By means of a checklist, two authors reviewed the articles and rated them on several indicators regarding the fidelity of the IM-protocol, the implementation process, and the intervention effect. Results: A literature search resulted in a total of 12 interventions as described in 38 articles. The fidelity to the IM-protocol was relatively low for participation throughout the development process and implementation planning. No relationship was found between fidelity of the IM-protocol and the intervention effect. A theory-based approach (as one of the core elements of IM) appears to be positively related to a successful implementation process. Conclusion: Results of the review suggest that organizing a participative approach and implementation planning is difficult in practice. In addition, results imply that conducting matrices of change objectives as part of the intervention development, although challenging and time-consuming, may ultimately pay off, resulting in a tailored intervention that matches the target group.
Aim: Intervention mapping (IM) is a method to systematically design interventions that is applied regularly within the public health domain. This study investigates whether IM is effectively used within the occupational safety and health domain as well. Specifically, this study explores the relation between the fidelity regarding the use of the IM protocol for intervention development, the implementation process and the effectiveness of the occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions. Methods: A systematic review was conducted including articles on development, implementation, and effects of occupational risk prevention and health promotion interventions that were developed according to the IM-protocol. By means of a checklist, two authors reviewed the articles and rated them on several indicators regarding the fidelity of the IM-protocol, the implementation process, and the intervention effect. Results: A literature search resulted in a total of 12 interventions as described in 38 articles. The fidelity to the IM-protocol was relatively low for participation throughout the development process and implementation planning. No relationship was found between fidelity of the IM-protocol and the intervention effect. A theory-based approach (as one of the core elements of IM) appears to be positively related to a successful implementation process. Conclusion: Results of the review suggest that organizing a participative approach and implementation planning is difficult in practice. In addition, results imply that conducting matrices of change objectives as part of the intervention development, although challenging and time-consuming, may ultimately pay off, resulting in a tailored intervention that matches the target group.
Entities:
Keywords:
intervention mapping; interventions; occupational health promotion; occupational risk prevention
Authors: Jennifer K Coffeng; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Willem van Mechelen; Cécile R L Boot Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Erik H A M van Deurssen; Anjoeka Pronk; Tim Meijster; Erik Tielemans; Dick Heederik; Karen M Oude Hengel Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Lisanne M Verweij; Karin I Proper; Evelien R Leffelaar; Andre N H Weel; Arnolda P Nauta; Carel T J Hulshof; Willem van Mechelen Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jennifer K Coffeng; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Saskia F A Duijts; Jos W R Twisk; Willem van Mechelen; Cécile R L Boot Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jantien van Berkel; Karin I Proper; Cécile R L Boot; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jantien van Berkel; Cécile R L Boot; Karin I Proper; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria E Fernandez; Gill A Ten Hoor; Sanne van Lieshout; Serena A Rodriguez; Rinad S Beidas; Guy Parcel; Robert A C Ruiter; Christine M Markham; Gerjo Kok Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2019-06-18
Authors: Jennifer K Coffeng; Ingrid J M Hendriksen; Saskia F Duijts; Karin I Proper; Willem van Mechelen; Cécile R L Boot Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 3.295