Factors influencing workplace health promotion intervention: a qualitative systematic review

Abstract

Although workplace health promotion (WHP) has evolved over the last 40 years, systematically collected knowledge on factors influencing the functioning of WHP is scarce. Therefore, a qualitative systematic literature review was carried out to systematically identify and synthesize factors influencing the phases of WHP interventions: needs assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation. Research evidence was identified by searching electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, Social Sciences Citation Index, ASSIA, ERIC, IBBS and PsycINFO) from 1998 to 2013, as well as by cross-checking reference lists of included peer-reviewed articles. The inclusion criteria were: original empirical research, description of WHP, description of barriers to and/or facilitators of the planning, implementation and/or evaluation of WHP. Finally, 54 full texts were included. From these, influencing factors were extracted and summarized using thematic analysis. The majority of influencing factors referred to the implementation phase, few dealt with planning and/or evaluation and none with needs assessment. The influencing factors were condensed into topics with respect to factors at contextual level (e.g. economic crisis); factors at organizational level (e.g. management support); factors at intervention level (e.g. quality of intervention concept); factors at implementer level (e.g. resources); factors at participant level (e.g. commitment to intervention) and factors referring to methodological and data aspects (e.g. data-collection issues). Factors regarding contextual issues and organizational aspects were identified across three phases. Therefore, future research and practice should consider not only the influencing factors at different levels, but also at different phases of WHP interventions.

Implementation of Financial Incentives for Successful Smoking Cessation in Real-Life Company Settings: A Qualitative Needs Assessment among Employers

“…A previous qualitative review also pointed to difficulties in the access and motivation of participants by the implementer as an obstacle to the implementation of health promotion interventions in the workplace. [21] Our results indicate that in order to reach the target group of smoking employees with a lower level of education, it may be necessary to offer employers an action plan and develop training and support for employers in health behavior related conversational skills to increase their confidence. Interestingly, employers did not bring up the idea of using financial incentives as a strategy to recruit employees, while incentives may increase participation levels amongst employees [22,23].…”

Size Matters: A Latent Class Analysis of Workplace Health Promotion Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Likelihood of Action in Small Workplaces

“…To the authors' knowledge, no standardized tools for assessing knowledge, attitudes, practices and likelihood of action for workplace health implementation exists. However, our survey instrument is informed by an established theoretical framework [26,27] and years of research on workplace health promotion [3,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. In addition, we assessed the construct reliability and convergent validity using Cronbach's alpha and factor loadings, respectively.…”

“…Practices include perceived barriers and enablers including human resources, time, funding and previous experience in the organization and is measured using a 4-point frequency scale (often, sometimes, rarely, never). Taken together these constructs lead to the likelihood of action [3,28] defined as currently offering a WHP program as well as the approach taken to implementation and is measured using a 4-point frequency scale (often, sometimes, rarely, never).…”

“…We were unable to find a specific and validated survey that measured knowledge, attitudes and practices for WHP. Therefore, the second literature review focused on examining the components on the KAP conceptual framework (Figure 1) to better understand the barrier and enablers to implementing WHP [3,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. For a more detailed explanation of the questions included in the survey instrument, the scale of measure, and the concepts included, see Appendix A.…”

“…enablers to implementing WHP [3,[28][29][30][31][32][33]. For a more detailed explanation of the questions included in the survey instrument, the scale of measure, and the concepts included, see Appendix A. Construct reliability of the survey instrument was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability to determine internal consistency, the extent to which all items in a questionnaire contribute towards measuring the same construct.…”