Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Study protocol of an effect and process evaluation of the Stamina model; a Structured and Time-effective Approach through Methods for an Inclusive and Active working life

Authors: Magnus Svartengren, Therese Hellman

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The working environment should be a naturally integrated part of business development. Provisions are in place that address the employer’s obligations to investigate, carry out and follow up activities in such a way that ill health and accidents at work are prevented and a satisfactory working environment is achieved. Still, there are organizations that not properly perform systematic work environment management. In order to improve adherence, interventions and models focused on these issues need to be easy to understand and provide rapid feedback of results in order to be implemented. The Stamina model has recently been implemented in Sweden. The model is a participatory organizational systematic model facilitating the work environment, productivity and quality. It is a support model that provides structured and recurrent feedback in the systematic work environment management. The aim of the present paper is to thoroughly describe the Stamina model and the studies that are designed to investigate the effect, to increase the understanding of how and why the model was or was not effective, and to identify factors that facilitate implementation.

Methods

The paper presents a project consisting of two related evaluation parts. Part one is an effect evaluation with an active group applying the Stamina model and a control group. This part investigate effects on proxy outcomes that are relevant for health and productivity. Part two is a process evaluation with a qualitative design. This part will be based on semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, such as employees, first line managers, project managers, facilitators and representatives from the management group, in the organizations.

Discussion

Many interventions found to be effective in research projects fail to translate into meaningful outcomes across multiple contexts. In this project a participatory approach will be adopted, including the possibility to modify the model according to organizational needs and preconditions. Valuable knowledge regarding the design and implementation of the model will be generated in order to develop a model that is suitable and sustainable in organizations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
ILO. Estimating the economic consequences of occupational injuries and illnesses in developing countries. Essential information for decision-makers. In: Switzerland: ILO; 2012.
3.
4.
Swedish Work Environment Authority. Systematic work environment management (AFS 2001:1Eng), provisions. In. Edited by SwedishWorkEnvironmentAuthority; 2001.
5.
Frick K, Johanson U. Kunskapssammanställning. Systematiskt arbetsmiljöarbete - syfte och inriktning, hinder och möjligheter i verksamhetsstyrningen. En Analys av svenska fallstudier. [in Eng: systematic work environment management - purpose and focus, obstacles and opportunities in business management. An analysis of Swedish case studies]. Stockholm: Arbetsmiljöverket; 2013.
6.
Martinsson C, Lohela-Karlsson M, Kwak L, Bergstrom G, Hellman T. What incentives influence employers to engage in workplace health interventions? BMC Public Health. 2016;18(854):1–12.
7.
Stoetzer U, Bergman P, Aborg C, Johansson G, Ahlberg G, Parmsund M, Svartengren M. Organizational factors related to low levels of sickness absence in a representative set of Swedish companies. Work. 2014;47(2):193–205.PubMed
8.
Stoetzer U, Åborg C, Johansson G, Svartengren M. Organization, relational justice and absenteeism. Work. 2014;47(2):521–9.PubMed
9.
Svartengren M, Stoetzer U, Parmsund M, Eriksson T, Stöllman Å, Vingård E. Hälsa och framtid i kommuner och landsting. [In Eng: Health and the future in Swedish municipalities and county councils]. Uppsala: Arbets- och miljömedicin rapportserie nr 1/2013; 2013.
10.
Luchman JN, Gonzalez-Morales MG. Demands, control, and support: a meta-analytic review of work characteristics interrelationships. J Occup Health Psychol. 2013;18(1):37–52.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Huo M, Boxall P, Cheung G. How does line-manager support enhance worker wellbeing? A study in China. Int J Market Hum Resource Manag. 2018;
12.
van Yperen N, Hagedoorn M. Do high job demands increase intrinsic motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support. Acad Manag J. 2003;46:339–48.
13.
Nielsen K, Randall R, Holten A, Gonzalez E. Conducting organizational-level occupational health interventions: what works? Work & Stress. 2010;24(3):234–59.CrossRef
14.
15.
Justesen B, Eskerod P, Reffstrup Christensen J, Sjögaard G. Implementing workplace health promotion - role of middle managers. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2017;10(2):164–78.CrossRef
16.
Davenport J, Allisey A, Page K, LaMontagne A, Reavley N. How can organisations help employee thrive? The development of guidelines for promoting positive mental health at work. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2016;9(4):411–27.CrossRef
17.
Wheelan S. Creating effective teams. A guide for members and leaders. 4th edition. Thousand oaks. In: Sage publications Inc; 2012.
18.
Wheelan S, Hochberger J. Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Res. 1996;27(1):143–70.CrossRef
19.
20.
Neumann WP, Eklund J, Hansson B, Lindbeck L. Effect assessment in work environment interventions: a methodological reflection. Ergonomics. 2010;53(1):130–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Nielsen K, Abildgaard J. Organizational interventions: a research-based framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work & Stress. 2013;27(3):278–97.CrossRef
22.
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, Altman DG, Barbour V, Macdonald H, Johnston M, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Josephson M, Vingard E. Zest for work? Assessment of enthusiasm and satisfaction with the present work situation and health--a 1.5-year follow-up study. Work. 2007;29(3):225–31.PubMed
24.
Aboagye E, Jensen I, Bergstrom G, Hagberg J, Axen I, Lohela-Karlsson M. Validity and test-retest reliability of an at-work production loss instrument. Occup Med (Lond). 2016;66(5):377–82.CrossRef
25.
Lohela-Karlsson M, Bergstrom G, Bjorklund C, Hagberg J, Jensen I. Measuring production loss due to health and work environment problems: construct validity and implications. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(12):1475–83.CrossRef
26.
Lohela-Karlsson M, Hagberg J, Bergstrom G. Production loss among employees perceiving work environment problems. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2015;88(6):769–77.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Elovainio M, Kivimaki M, Vahtera J. Organizational justice: evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(1):105–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Westerlund A, Brandt L, Harlid R, Akerstedt T, Lagerros YT. Using the Karolinska sleep questionnaire to identify obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in a sleep clinic population. Clin Respir J. 2014;8(4):444–54.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Palinkas L, Horwitz S, Green C, Wisdom J, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44.CrossRef
30.
Ivanoff SD, Hultberg J. Understanding the multiple realities of everyday life: basic assumptions in focus-group methodology. Scand J Occup Ther. 2006;13(2):125–32.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Saldana J. Longitudinal qualitative research: analyzing change through time. New York: AltaMira Press; 2003.
33.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
34.
Swedish Work Environment Authority. Organisational and social work environment (AFS 2015:4Eng), provisions. In. Edited by SwedishWorkEnvironmentAuthority; 2015.
35.
Stetler C, Legro M, Wallace C, Bowman C, Guihan M, Hagedorn H, Kimmel B, Sharp N, Smith J. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:1–8.CrossRef
36.
Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, Stillman L, Blachman M, Dunville R, Saul J. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3–4):171–81.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Medical Research Council. A framework for the development and evaluation of randomised controlled trials for complex interventions to improve health. In: London: MRC; 2000.
38.
Creswell J. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. In: US: sage publication Inc.; 2017.
39.
Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.
Metadata
Title
Study protocol of an effect and process evaluation of the Stamina model; a Structured and Time-effective Approach through Methods for an Inclusive and Active working life
Authors
Magnus Svartengren
Therese Hellman
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5807-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Social determinants, health status and 10-year mortality among 10,906 older adults from the English longitudinal study of aging: the ATHLOS project

Research article

Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study

Research article

Patterns and predictors of adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations in Alberta’s Tomorrow Project participants stratified by risk

Research article

Does household help prevent loneliness among the elderly? An evaluation of a policy reform in the Netherlands

Correction

Correction: expanded HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in communities in new South Wales, Australia (EPIC-NSW): design of an open label, single arm implementation trial

Research article

Vaccine wastage in The Gambia: a prospective observational study