Organizational-level interventions in small and medium-sized enterprises: Enabling and inhibiting factors in the PoWRS program

Ipsen, Christine; Gish, Liv; Poulsen, Signe

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.017

Cited by 51 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The next four papers (Ipsen et al, 2015;Kvorning et al, 2015;Olsen and Hasle, 2015;Ozmec et al, 2015) examine the effects of various national and organisational level interventions aimed at improving the work environment in SMEs in a range of industry sectors (agriculture, construction, auto-repair, software development, welding, surveying, manufacturing assembly line). The paper by Olsen et al (2015) uses programme theory and realist analysis in a case study evaluation of a national insurance incentive programme (the New Zealand Workplace Safety Discount scheme) in the agriculture sector.…”

Section: Commentary On the Papers In This Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They show that the efficacy of the programme was very dependent on 'contextual factors', and that these should be taken into account when designing programme to help improve the work environment in SMEs. Ipsen et al (2015) describe an organisational-level intervention (again in Denmark) and, like Masi and Cagno (2015), consider enabling and facilitating factors. Their findings are consistent with the above summary of current knowledge in that the dominant inhibiting factor in SMEs in their study was a strong focus on daily operations and a lack of time for the intervention.…”

Section: Commentary On the Papers In This Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing safety in small and medium enterprises

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis paper presents a conceptual model for increasing acceptable working environments for SMEs. It also acts as an editorial for the special issue of Safety Science on 'Managing safety in small and medium enterprises (SMEs)'. It describes how seven of the ten papers in the special issue originate from an international conference in 2013 on Understanding Small Enterprises. It includes a commentary on the papers in the special issue as well as directing the reader to all of the current state-of-the-science sources known to the authors. The paper provides a background to previous research on safety in SMEs, showing how most current policy and legislation on occupational health and safety (OSH) and the work environment is based on large enterprises and that there is a relative paucity of research on OSH in SMEs. In a summary of current knowledge, it is argued that modern OHS legislation and interventions to help improve work environments need to increasingly take account of the specific characteristics of SMEs. The conceptual model for increasing acceptable working environments for SMEs takes its onset in a legislative standard that is built into intervention programmes and includes three instrument pillars: inspection to enhance compliance, recognition of the standard by the stakeholders in the industry sector and dissemination of information to small enterprises.

show abstract

Section: Commentary On the Papers In This Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commentary On the Papers In This Special Issuementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing safety in small and medium enterprises

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other process variable in this cluster was barriers and facilitators, which was reported six times. Ipsen et al (19) gave an example of both: making the wrong changes slows the process (barrier) and the intervention constitutes a collective process (facilitator).…”

Section: Clustersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Failing to collect information from stakeholders other than employees (micro level) also means that differences in perspectives among stakeholders might be overlooked. Many studies show, however, that for implementation success, support from other stakeholders is important (19,29,(32)(33)(34). In future process evaluations, researchers could place more emphasis on the collection of process data at different levels.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

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

“…The three companies are either IT or manufacturing companies. All companies implemented the same participatory intervention program, known as the PoWRS program (Ipsen et al, 2015) and tested its applicability. The program consists of three phases and focuses on changing the work characteristics in a participatory process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying the chronicle workshop as a method for evaluating participatory interventions

Poulsen

Ipsen

Gish

2015

IJHFE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the growing interest for process evaluation in participatory interventions, studies examining specific methods for process evaluation are lacking. In this paper, we propose a new method for process evaluation--the Chronicle Workshop. The Chronicle Workshop has not previously been used in intervention studies. The method was tested in three small and medium-sized companies. Four to six employees participated in each Chronicle Workshop, which was the last activity of the participatory preventive intervention program PoWRS. The program aims at creating changes which have a positive effect on both productivity and well-being.In all cases we saw that the Chronicle Workshop gave valuable information about the intervention process and that it initiated a joint reflection among participants from different departments. The Chronicle Workshop makes it possible to better understand the results of the intervention, the factors affecting it, and the outcome evaluation based on a summary view of the company and interventionrelated factors that influence the intervention program and results.

show abstract

Organizational-level interventions in small and medium-sized enterprises: Enabling and inhibiting factors in the PoWRS program

Cited by 51 publications

References 35 publications

Managing safety in small and medium enterprises

Managing safety in small and medium enterprises

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

Applying the chronicle workshop as a method for evaluating participatory interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About