Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions

Nielsen, Karina; Randall, Raymond

doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.690556

Cited by 312 publications

(556 citation statements)

References 80 publications

(144 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

538

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These work stations may be noisy or enable concentration work, et cetera. Apart from the exact nature (quality and quantity), also the introduction and implementation do matter (Baane et al, 2011;Kompier & Kristensen, 2001;Nielsen & Randall, 2013). In the light of such content-wise, contextual and process considerations, this study's findings cannot simply be generalized to other NWW interventions and other companies.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 51%

Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes

Nijp

Beckers

Voorde

et al. 2016

Chronobiology International

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New ways of working (NWW) is a type of work organization that is characterized by temporal and spatial flexibility, often combined with extensive use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and performance-based management. In a three-wave intervention study, we examined the effects of NWW on both the organization of work (changes in control over time and place of work; working hours and work location; and other key job characteristics), and on employees' outcomes (work-nonwork balance; health and well-being; and job-related outcomes). We applied a quasiexperimental design within a large Dutch financial company (N = 2,912). We studied an intervention group (n = 2,391) and made comparisons with a reference group (n = 521). There were three study waves: (i) one/two months before, and (ii) 4 months and (iii) 10 months after implementation of NWW. Repeated measures analyses of covariance (involving 361 participants from the intervention group and 80 participants from the reference group) showed a large and significant shift from hours worked at the office to hours worked at home after implementation of NWW. Accordingly, commuting time was reduced. Employees remained working on week days and during day time. Psychosocial work-characteristics, work-nonwork balance, stress, fatigue, and job-related outcomes remained favourable and largely unaffected, but the health score in the intervention group decreased (medium effect). These findings suggest that the implementation of NWW does not necessarily lead to changes in psychosocial work characteristics, well-being or job-related outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 51%

Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes

Nijp

Beckers

Voorde

et al. 2016

Chronobiology International

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can be done by studying process variables (9)(10)(11)(12). There are different ways of investigating the implementation process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fleuren et al (13) assert that components, such as the sociopolitical context, and characteristics of the organization, participant (skills, knowledge, and perceived support), and the intervention itself (complexity, relative advantage) are also important for implementation. Finally, Nielsen and Randall (11) suggest that mental models (pertaining to constructs such as readiness for change) should be added to existing process evaluation frameworks. Despite increasing support for the incorporation of process factors into the evaluation of SMI in the last 10-15 years, there is still limited consensus on which process variables should be assessed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Process variables in organizational stress management intervention evaluation research: a systematic review

Havermans¹,

Schelvis²,

Boot³

et al. 2016

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Havermans BM, Roosmarijn SMC, Boot CRL, Brouwers EPM, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Process variables in organizational stress management intervention evaluation research: A systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;(5):371-381. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3570 Objectives This systematic review aimed to explore which process variables are used in stress management intervention (SMI) evaluation research.Methods A systematic review was conducted using seven electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on an SMI aimed at primary or secondary stress prevention, were directed at paid employees, and reported process data. Two independent researchers checked all records and selected the articles for inclusion. Nielsen and Randall's model for process evaluation was used to cluster the process variables. The three main clusters were context, intervention, and mental models. ResultsIn the 44 articles included, 47 process variables were found, clustered into three main categories: context (two variables), intervention (31 variables), and mental models (14 variables). Half of the articles contained no reference to process evaluation literature. The collection of process evaluation data mostly took place after the intervention and at the level of the employee. ConclusionsThe findings suggest that there is great heterogeneity in methods and process variables used in process evaluations of SMI. This, together with the lack of use of a standardized framework for evaluation, hinders the advancement of process evaluation theory development.

show abstract

“…En effet, même si la présence de plus d'une source relatant l'influence d'un indicateur donné était Ridde et Dagenais, 2012). Plus spécifiquement dans le champ de l'ergonomie, quelques évaluations des processus ont documenté des variables comme le recrutement, la portée de l'intervention, la dose d'intervention émise et la dose reçue, ainsi que la fidélité par rapport à ce qui avait été prévu au départ (Pehkonen et coll., 2009 ;Driessen et coll., 2010 ;Baumann et coll., 2012 ;Visser et coll., 2014 ;Dale et coll., 2016), alors que le modèle d'évaluation des processus retenu dans cette étude se concentre plutôt sur l'acquisition d'une compréhension du contexte et de la façon dont une intervention sur le terrain est perçue par des acteurs de différents niveaux hiérarchiques, quelles sont leurs représentations et comment elles ont évolué (Nielsen et Randall, 2013). Nous croyons que ce modèle développé pour des interventions organisationnelles est plus proche des préoccupations des praticiens et peut fournir des pistes utiles pour améliorer l'efficacité des actions mises en place pour modifier les représentations des acteurs-clés, un effet intermédiaire important qui devrait être inclus de façon systématique dans les évaluations d'interventions ergonomiques.…”

Section: Comparaisons Intercasunclassified

How and Why : A Process Evaluation Proposal to Assess the Development Phase of Ergonomic Interventions

Albert¹,

Vézina²,

Bilodeau³

et al. 2017

pistes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions

Cited by 312 publications

References 80 publications

Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes

Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes

Process variables in organizational stress management intervention evaluation research: a systematic review

How and Why : A Process Evaluation Proposal to Assess the Development Phase of Ergonomic Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About