Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

Nidhi Gupta*, Christian Dyrlund Wåhlin-Jacobsen, Johan Simonsen Abildgaard, Louise Nøhr Henriksen, Karina Nielsen, Andreas Holtermann

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

135 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial workplace intervention (known as PIPPI) on work ability and recovery among industrial workers. Methods Eligible workers were cluster-randomized into intervention (N=193) and control (N=222) groups. Intervention group members participated in three workshops where they mapped positive and negative aspects of their physical and psychosocial work environment and developed action plans addressing the highlighted issues, which were subsequently implemented by the participants. Questionnaire-based data on work ability and recovery were collected at baseline and 8-, 10- and 12-month follow-up. Data on productivity, well-being, mental health, and physical demands and resources were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Results The intervention was delivered and received as planned (100% planned workshops conducted, 69% [standard deviation (SD) 7%] participation in workshops) and with a response rate of 76% (SD 8%) to the questionnaires. No significant between-group improvements for any of the outcomes were found in intention-to-treat multi-level mixed models. On the contrary, tendencies were observed for poorer recovery and reduced work ability in the intervention compared to control group. Conclusion The intervention did not improve the outcomes. This result can have several explanations, such as a regression-toward-the-mean effect or that the intervention might have put an additional burden on the workers already facing high work demands. In addition, there may have been an insufficient match between the intervention components implemented and the predetermined outcomes, and implementation may have been unsuccessful. These potential explanations need to be investigated using process evaluation data.

Original languageEnglish
JournalScandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
Volume44
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)58-68
ISSN0355-3140
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

industrial worker
psychosocial intervention
Randomized Controlled Trials
Recovery
resource
resources
Education
mental health
action plan
workplace
Productivity
Health
productivity
ability
Workplace
Mental Health
worker
trial
demand
questionnaire

Keywords

  • Action plan
  • Effect evaluation
  • Ergonomics
  • Participation
  • Participatory intervention
  • Physical intervention
  • PIPPI
  • RCT
  • Recovery
  • Visual mapping
  • Work ability
  • Health Promotion/methods
  • Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
  • Occupational Health
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Organizational Innovation
  • Mental Health
  • Industry
  • Efficiency
  • Adult
  • Female
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Workplace/psychology

Cite this

Gupta, Nidhi ; Wåhlin-Jacobsen, Christian Dyrlund ; Abildgaard, Johan Simonsen ; Henriksen, Louise Nøhr ; Nielsen, Karina ; Holtermann, Andreas. / Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers : A cluster-randomized controlled trial. In: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 2018 ; Vol. 44, No. 1. pp. 58-68.
@article{dd932b9d085743ae965fa1f931b33e73,
title = "Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers: A cluster-randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial workplace intervention (known as PIPPI) on work ability and recovery among industrial workers. Methods Eligible workers were cluster-randomized into intervention (N=193) and control (N=222) groups. Intervention group members participated in three workshops where they mapped positive and negative aspects of their physical and psychosocial work environment and developed action plans addressing the highlighted issues, which were subsequently implemented by the participants. Questionnaire-based data on work ability and recovery were collected at baseline and 8-, 10- and 12-month follow-up. Data on productivity, well-being, mental health, and physical demands and resources were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Results The intervention was delivered and received as planned (100{\%} planned workshops conducted, 69{\%} [standard deviation (SD) 7{\%}] participation in workshops) and with a response rate of 76{\%} (SD 8{\%}) to the questionnaires. No significant between-group improvements for any of the outcomes were found in intention-to-treat multi-level mixed models. On the contrary, tendencies were observed for poorer recovery and reduced work ability in the intervention compared to control group. Conclusion The intervention did not improve the outcomes. This result can have several explanations, such as a regression-toward-the-mean effect or that the intervention might have put an additional burden on the workers already facing high work demands. In addition, there may have been an insufficient match between the intervention components implemented and the predetermined outcomes, and implementation may have been unsuccessful. These potential explanations need to be investigated using process evaluation data.",
keywords = "Action plan, Effect evaluation, Ergonomics, Participation, Participatory intervention, Physical intervention, PIPPI, RCT, Recovery, Visual mapping, Work ability, Health Promotion/methods, Outcome Assessment (Health Care), Occupational Health, Humans, Male, Organizational Innovation, Mental Health, Industry, Efficiency, Adult, Female, Surveys and Questionnaires, Workplace/psychology",
author = "Nidhi Gupta and W{\aa}hlin-Jacobsen, {Christian Dyrlund} and Abildgaard, {Johan Simonsen} and Henriksen, {Louise N{\o}hr} and Karina Nielsen and Andreas Holtermann",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.5271/sjweh.3689",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "58--68",
journal = "Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health",
issn = "0355-3140",
publisher = "Tyoterveyslaitos",
number = "1",

}

Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers : A cluster-randomized controlled trial. / Gupta, Nidhi; Wåhlin-Jacobsen, Christian Dyrlund; Abildgaard, Johan Simonsen; Henriksen, Louise Nøhr; Nielsen, Karina; Holtermann, Andreas.

In: Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2018, p. 58-68.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial intervention to balance the demands and resources of industrial workers

T2 - A cluster-randomized controlled trial

AU - Gupta, Nidhi

AU - Wåhlin-Jacobsen, Christian Dyrlund

AU - Abildgaard, Johan Simonsen

AU - Henriksen, Louise Nøhr

AU - Nielsen, Karina

AU - Holtermann, Andreas

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial workplace intervention (known as PIPPI) on work ability and recovery among industrial workers. Methods Eligible workers were cluster-randomized into intervention (N=193) and control (N=222) groups. Intervention group members participated in three workshops where they mapped positive and negative aspects of their physical and psychosocial work environment and developed action plans addressing the highlighted issues, which were subsequently implemented by the participants. Questionnaire-based data on work ability and recovery were collected at baseline and 8-, 10- and 12-month follow-up. Data on productivity, well-being, mental health, and physical demands and resources were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Results The intervention was delivered and received as planned (100% planned workshops conducted, 69% [standard deviation (SD) 7%] participation in workshops) and with a response rate of 76% (SD 8%) to the questionnaires. No significant between-group improvements for any of the outcomes were found in intention-to-treat multi-level mixed models. On the contrary, tendencies were observed for poorer recovery and reduced work ability in the intervention compared to control group. Conclusion The intervention did not improve the outcomes. This result can have several explanations, such as a regression-toward-the-mean effect or that the intervention might have put an additional burden on the workers already facing high work demands. In addition, there may have been an insufficient match between the intervention components implemented and the predetermined outcomes, and implementation may have been unsuccessful. These potential explanations need to be investigated using process evaluation data.

AB - Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a participatory physical and psychosocial workplace intervention (known as PIPPI) on work ability and recovery among industrial workers. Methods Eligible workers were cluster-randomized into intervention (N=193) and control (N=222) groups. Intervention group members participated in three workshops where they mapped positive and negative aspects of their physical and psychosocial work environment and developed action plans addressing the highlighted issues, which were subsequently implemented by the participants. Questionnaire-based data on work ability and recovery were collected at baseline and 8-, 10- and 12-month follow-up. Data on productivity, well-being, mental health, and physical demands and resources were collected at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Results The intervention was delivered and received as planned (100% planned workshops conducted, 69% [standard deviation (SD) 7%] participation in workshops) and with a response rate of 76% (SD 8%) to the questionnaires. No significant between-group improvements for any of the outcomes were found in intention-to-treat multi-level mixed models. On the contrary, tendencies were observed for poorer recovery and reduced work ability in the intervention compared to control group. Conclusion The intervention did not improve the outcomes. This result can have several explanations, such as a regression-toward-the-mean effect or that the intervention might have put an additional burden on the workers already facing high work demands. In addition, there may have been an insufficient match between the intervention components implemented and the predetermined outcomes, and implementation may have been unsuccessful. These potential explanations need to be investigated using process evaluation data.

KW - Action plan

KW - Effect evaluation

KW - Ergonomics

KW - Participation

KW - Participatory intervention

KW - Physical intervention

KW - PIPPI

KW - RCT

KW - Recovery

KW - Visual mapping

KW - Work ability

KW - Health Promotion/methods

KW - Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

KW - Occupational Health

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Organizational Innovation

KW - Mental Health

KW - Industry

KW - Efficiency

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Workplace/psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85040050274&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5271/sjweh.3689

DO - 10.5271/sjweh.3689

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 29095478

AN - SCOPUS:85040050274

VL - 44

SP - 58

EP - 68

JO - Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

JF - Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health

SN - 0355-3140

IS - 1

ER -