Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions

被引:135
作者
Egan, M. [1 ]
Bambra, C. [3 ]
Petticrew, M. [4 ]
Whitehead, M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Glasgow, Med Res Council Social & Publ Hlth Sci Unit, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Lanark, Scotland
[2] Univ Liverpool, Div Publ Hlth, Liverpool L69 3BX, Merseyside, England
[3] Univ Durham, Wolfson Res Inst, Dept Geog, Durham DH1 3HP, England
[4] London Sch Hyg & Trop Med, Publ & Environm Hlth Res Unit, London, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
WORK; PROGRAMS; INEQUALITIES; QUALITY; REORGANIZATION; FIDELITY; EFFICACY; DESIGN; POLICY; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1136/jech.2007.071233
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: The reporting of intervention implementation in studies included in systematic reviews of organisational-level workplace interventions was appraised. Implementation is taken to include such factors as intervention setting, resources, planning, collaborations, delivery and macro-level socioeconomic contexts. Understanding how implementation affects intervention outcomes may help prevent erroneous conclusions and misleading assumptions about generalisability, but implementation must be adequately reported if it is to be taken into account. Methods: Data on implementation were obtained from four systematic reviews of complex interventions in workplace settings. Implementation was appraised using a specially developed checklist and by means of an unstructured reading of the text. Results: 103 studies were identified and appraised, evaluating four types of organisational-level workplace intervention (employee participation, changing job tasks, shift changes and compressed working weeks). Many studies referred to implementation, but reporting was generally poor and anecdotal in form. This poor quality of reporting did not vary greatly by type or date of publication. A minority of studies described how implementation may have influenced outcomes. These descriptions were more usefully explored through an unstructured reading of the text, rather than by means of the checklist. Conclusions: Evaluations of complex interventions should include more detailed reporting of implementation and consider how to measure quality of implementation. The checklist helped us explore the poor reporting of implementation in a more systematic fashion. In terms of interpreting study findings and their transferability, however, the more qualitative appraisals appeared to offer greater potential for exploring how implementation may influence the findings of specific evaluations. Implementation appraisal techniques for systematic reviews of complex interventions require further development and testing.
引用
收藏
页码:4 / 11
页数:8
相关论文
共 48 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies
[2]  
Arai L., 2007, Evidence Policy, V3, P361, DOI [10.1332/174426407781738029, DOI 10.1332/174426407781738029]
[3]  
ARMSTRONG R, 2008, J PUBLIC HLTH
[4]  
Bambra C, 2008, J EPIDEMIOL COMMUN H, V62, P764, DOI 10.1136/jech.2007.067249
[5]   Does 'welfare-to-work' work? A systematic review of the effectiveness of the UK's welfare-to-work programmes for people with a disability or chronic illness [J].
Bambra, C ;
Whitehead, M ;
Hamilton, V .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2005, 60 (09) :1905-1918
[6]   The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 2. A systematic review of task restructuring interventions [J].
Bambra, Clare ;
Egan, Matt ;
Thomas, Sian ;
Petticrew, Mark ;
Whitehead, Margaret .
JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2007, 61 (12) :1028-1037
[7]   Shifting schedules - The health effects of reorganizing shift work [J].
Bambra, Clare L. ;
Whitehead, Margaret M. ;
Sowden, Amanda J. ;
Akers, Joanne ;
Petticrew, Mark P. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2008, 34 (05) :427-434
[8]  
Berman P., 1976, The Educational Forum, V40, P345, DOI DOI 10.1080/00131727609336469
[9]   THE FIDELITY ADAPTATION DEBATE - IMPLICATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC-SECTOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS [J].
BLAKELY, CH ;
MAYER, JP ;
GOTTSCHALK, RG ;
SCHMITT, N ;
DAVIDSON, WS ;
ROITMAN, DB ;
EMSHOFF, JG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, 1987, 15 (03) :253-268
[10]  
BRINTON R, 1983, PERSONNEL J MAY, P393