Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides

Charlotte Diana Nørregaard Rasmussen, Anne Konring Larsen, Andreas Holtermann, Karen Søgaard, Marie Birk Jørgensen

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Workplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides in elderly care.

METHODS: Percentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson's chi(2) for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS: The project was adopted by 44% of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention's potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71% responded on the questionnaire and 57% consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.

CONCLUSIONS: Our recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses' aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.

Original languageEnglish
Article number60
JournalB M C Medical Research Methodology
Volume14
Issue number60
ISSN1471-2288
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1. May 2014

Fingerprint

Nurses' Aides
Low Back Pain
Workplace
Physical Exertion
Health Promotion
Health
Health Services Needs and Demand
Logistic Models
Odds Ratio
Regression Analysis
Organizations

Cite this

Rasmussen, Charlotte Diana Nørregaard ; Larsen, Anne Konring ; Holtermann, Andreas ; Søgaard, Karen ; Jørgensen, Marie Birk. / Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides. In: B M C Medical Research Methodology. 2014 ; Vol. 14, No. 60.
@article{c74e41a989a840e893561c182bfeeaca,
title = "Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Workplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides in elderly care.METHODS: Percentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson's chi(2) for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.RESULTS: The project was adopted by 44{\%} of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention's potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71{\%} responded on the questionnaire and 57{\%} consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.CONCLUSIONS: Our recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses' aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.",
author = "Rasmussen, {Charlotte Diana N{\o}rregaard} and Larsen, {Anne Konring} and Andreas Holtermann and Karen S{\o}gaard and J{\o}rgensen, {Marie Birk}",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2288-14-60",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "B M C Medical Research Methodology",
issn = "1471-2288",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "60",

}

Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides. / Rasmussen, Charlotte Diana Nørregaard; Larsen, Anne Konring; Holtermann, Andreas; Søgaard, Karen; Jørgensen, Marie Birk.

In: B M C Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 14, No. 60, 60, 01.05.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adoption of workplaces and reach of employees for a multi-faceted intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides

AU - Rasmussen, Charlotte Diana Nørregaard

AU - Larsen, Anne Konring

AU - Holtermann, Andreas

AU - Søgaard, Karen

AU - Jørgensen, Marie Birk

PY - 2014/5/1

Y1 - 2014/5/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Workplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides in elderly care.METHODS: Percentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson's chi(2) for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.RESULTS: The project was adopted by 44% of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention's potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71% responded on the questionnaire and 57% consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.CONCLUSIONS: Our recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses' aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.

AB - BACKGROUND: Workplace adoption and reach of health promotion are important, but generally poorly reported. The aim of this study is therefore to evaluate the adoption of workplaces (organizational level) and reach of employees (individual level) of a multi-faceted workplace health promotion and work environment intervention targeting low back pain among nurses' aides in elderly care.METHODS: Percentage of adopters was calculated among eligible workplaces and differences between adopters and non-adopters were evaluated through workplace registrations and manager questionnaires from all eligible workplaces. From the adopted workplaces reach was calculated among eligible employees as the percentage who responded on a questionnaire. Responders were compared with non-responders using data from company registrations. Among responders, comparisons based on questionnaire data were performed between those consenting to participate in the intervention (consenters) and those not consenting to participate in the intervention (non-consenters). Comparisons were done using Student's t-test for the continuous variables, Fisher's exact test for dichotomous variables and the Pearson's chi(2) for categorical variables. Moreover odds ratios for non-responding and non-consenting were investigated with binary logistic regression analyses.RESULTS: The project was adopted by 44% of the offered workplaces. The main differences between adopters and non-adopters were that workplaces adopting the intervention had a more stable organization as well as a management with positive beliefs of the intervention's potential benefits. Of eligible employees, 71% responded on the questionnaire and 57% consented to participate. Non-responders and non-consenters did not differ from the responders and consenters on demographic factors and health. However, more non-responders and non-consenters were low skilled, worked less than 30 hours pr. week, and worked evening and nightshift compared to responders and consenters, respectively. Consenters had more musculoskeletal pain and reduced self-rated health, as well as higher physical exertion during work compared to non-consenters.CONCLUSIONS: Our recruitment effort yielded a population of consenters that was representative of the target population of nurses' aides with respect to demographic factors, and health. Moreover more consenters had problems like pain and high physical exertion during work, which fitted the scope of the intervention.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered as ISRCTN78113519.

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-60

DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-14-60

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24885476

VL - 14

JO - B M C Medical Research Methodology

JF - B M C Medical Research Methodology

SN - 1471-2288

IS - 60

M1 - 60

ER -