Process Evaluation in Occupational Stress Management Programs: A Systematic Review

Murta, Sheila Giardini; Sanderson, Kristy; Oldenburg, Brian

doi:10.4278/0890-1171-21.4.248

Cited by 155 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The specific components are listed in table 1. Process variables were coded using a list of concepts derived from process evaluation literature (9,11,13,15,17). During coding, the researchers used the list of concepts as a frame of reference, as a starting point.…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intervention characteristics were adapted from Murta and colleagues (15). The process evaluation methods components were adapted from Wierenga and colleagues (17).…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In accordance with the aforementioned different perspectives on process evaluation, they observed great heterogeneity in variables and designs researchers use for SMI process evaluation. Murta and colleagues made this observation using a restricted selection of process variables (15). A limitation of this restricted selection is that publications reporting other process variables could have been neglected.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Egan and colleagues (14), for example, provide a review of implementation appraisal of complex social interventions, concluding that implementation and context are crucial for impact assessment of these interventions. To the authors' best knowledge, a decade ago, Murta et al (15) have provided the only review describing which process variables are used in SMI evaluation research. In accordance with the aforementioned different perspectives on process evaluation, they observed great heterogeneity in variables and designs researchers use for SMI process evaluation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intervention characteristics were adapted from Murta and colleagues (15). The process evaluation methods components were adapted from Wierenga and colleagues (17).…”

Section: Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…The focus of such studies is on the methodological quality of the included studies, which of course is a good thing, and on the effects of interventions (outcome evaluation), but not so much on the intervention itself and how it is implemented. This means that the link between process evaluation and outcome has not yet been systematically addressed (14). Therefore it is hard to understand what actually happened in these intervention studies, and as a consequence is it hard to answer questions such as "How, when and why interventions have or have no effects" (see also 15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational stress management interventions: Is it the singer not the song?

Kompier

Aust²

2016

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

355Editorial Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(5):355-358. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3578 Organizational stress management interventions: Is it the singer not the song?Good reasons exist for combating stress at work. It is a burden for individual employees and their families and costly to companies and society. Moreover preventing stress at work is a sign of good corporate citizenship as it respects modern legislation that stimulates the provision of a good quality of working life.In order to recommend good interventions, we need to know which interventions work. Outcome evaluation research is, therefore, important but not enough. We not only need to know "what works", but also "when, how, and why" this may be the case. This means that we need to combine classical effect evaluation research with process evaluation. Combining these two approaches fits in a young scientific discipline: implementation research. Implementation refers to "the way a program is put into practice and delivered to participants" (1). Implementation research crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries, with contributions being made from both occupational and public health domains but also from psychological theories on motivation, behavioral change, and social influence.In a recent commentary, Durlak (1) has highlighted major findings in implementation research. He concludes: "We now know that it is not evidence-based programs that are effective, but it is wellimplemented evidence-based programs that are effective" (p1124). He also explains: "If we do not assess implementation, we do not know if a program has been put to an adequate test. It may fail not because the intervention lacks value, but because the intervention was not implemented at a sufficiently high level to produce its effects" (p1124).Effect-only evaluation data may thus mask intervention effects that are sensitive to variations in intervention processes (2). This all means that checking effects is not enough to determine whether a program works or not. To answer this question properly, we need to open up the black box because we also must know how it was implemented.Ten years earlier -in an occupational health intervention context -Tage Kristensen made comparable arguments (3). Kristensen explained the difference between implementation and theory failure by describing the case of a patient (employee) and a pill (stress intervention): "It does not help that the pill has effect if the patient does not take it, and it does not help that the patient takes the pill if it has no effect" (p207). In both cases, process evaluation is needed to find out what actually happened and make the right decisions to proceed. In the first case (pill not taken), the implementation failed and it is therefore not possible to determine if the program works. The underlying theory still may be right. Had the implementation not been studied, the erroneous conclusion might have been that "the theory was wrong". In this first case, the next step should hence be to work on better implementation. In the se...

show abstract

School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review

Harris

Kneale

Lasserson

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Process Evaluation in Occupational Stress Management Programs: A Systematic Review

Abstract: The incomplete reporting of information relevant to process evaluation makes it difficult to identify reliable determinants of effective intervention implementation or outcomes.

Cited by 155 publications

References 92 publications

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

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

Organizational stress management interventions: Is it the singer not the song?

School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About