BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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 registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR3284.

BackgroundIn 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/DesignThe 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 numberNetherlands Trial Register NTR3284

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.

SamenvattingAchtergrond: Momenteel is er nauwelijks sprake van arbocuratieve samenwerking tussen de eerstelijns- en bedrijfsgezondheidszorg. Waar eerdere initiatieven tot verbetering vooral gericht waren op de huis- en bedrijfsarts, onderzoeken we in deze bijdrage welke rol praktijkondersteuners van de huisarts (POH-ggz en POH-S) en van de bedrijfsarts (POB) voor zichzelf zien bij multiproblematiek. Tevens exploreren we welke belemmeringen er zijn voor arbocuratieve samenwerking door praktijkondersteuners bij multiproblematiek.Methode: We hebben drie focusgroepgesprekken uitgevoerd met zeven POH’s-ggz, elf POH’s‑S en acht POB’s – 26 praktijkondersteuners in totaal.Resultaten: De praktijkondersteuners in ons onderzoek komen tijdens hun werk in aanraking met multiproblematiek. POH’s en POB’s zien een rol voor zichzelf weggelegd bij het bespreken en het bieden van ondersteuning bij respectievelijk werk- en privégerelateerde klachten. Daarbij erkennen ze, waar nodig, het belang van arbocuratieve samenwerking om goede zorg te leveren. Op dit moment vindt er echter geen directe samenwerking plaats op het niveau van de praktijkondersteuner. Belemmeringen hiervoor blijken de formele regels rond taakdelegatie en rolopvatting van de POB, onbekendheid en vooroordelen bij vooral POH’s wat betreft de bedrijfsgezondheidszorg, en praktische barrières als de AVG-wetgeving en bereikbaarheid.Conclusie: POH’s en POB’s staan open voor arbocuratieve samenwerking, mits een oplossing gevonden wordt voor deze fundamentele en praktische belemmeringen.