Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Process Evaluation in Occupational Stress Management Programs: A Systematic Review

Process Evaluation in Occupational Stress Management Programs: A Systematic Review Objective.To conduct a systematic review of workplace stress management intervention studies that have incorporated process evaluation.Data Source.Electronic databases such as PsycINFO and MEDline were searched.Study Inclusion Criteria.The inclusion criteria included interventions published in the English language that were focused on either individual- or organizational-level stress management interventions at the workplace, with an outcome evaluation.Data Extraction.Each article was coded on key process-relevant variables, including context, recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, implementation, and participant's attitudes toward the intervention. Studies that reported on at least one of these process variables were also coded on the following study characteristics: Participants, setting, evaluation design, intervention content, intervention format, and study outcomes.Data Synthesis.Statistical Package for the Social Science was used to analyze the data with descriptive statistics.Results.Of the 84 studies identified that met the study inclusion criteria, 52 (61.9%) reported findings on at least one of the key relevant process-relevant variables. Variables most frequently included were recruitment (30%), intervention dose received (22%), participants' attitudes toward intervention (19%), and program reach (13%). Fewer than half of the studies presented any findings linking process evaluation and outcome evaluation.Conclusions.The incomplete reporting of information relevant to process evaluation makes it difficult to identify reliable determinants of effective intervention implementation or outcomes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Health Promotion SAGE

Process Evaluation in Occupational Stress Management Programs: A Systematic Review

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/process-evaluation-in-occupational-stress-management-programs-a-oips1SGiRJ

References (104)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© 2007 SAGE Publications
ISSN
0890-1171
eISSN
2168-6602
DOI
10.4278/0890-1171-21.4.248
pmid
17375490
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objective.To conduct a systematic review of workplace stress management intervention studies that have incorporated process evaluation.Data Source.Electronic databases such as PsycINFO and MEDline were searched.Study Inclusion Criteria.The inclusion criteria included interventions published in the English language that were focused on either individual- or organizational-level stress management interventions at the workplace, with an outcome evaluation.Data Extraction.Each article was coded on key process-relevant variables, including context, recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, implementation, and participant's attitudes toward the intervention. Studies that reported on at least one of these process variables were also coded on the following study characteristics: Participants, setting, evaluation design, intervention content, intervention format, and study outcomes.Data Synthesis.Statistical Package for the Social Science was used to analyze the data with descriptive statistics.Results.Of the 84 studies identified that met the study inclusion criteria, 52 (61.9%) reported findings on at least one of the key relevant process-relevant variables. Variables most frequently included were recruitment (30%), intervention dose received (22%), participants' attitudes toward intervention (19%), and program reach (13%). Fewer than half of the studies presented any findings linking process evaluation and outcome evaluation.Conclusions.The incomplete reporting of information relevant to process evaluation makes it difficult to identify reliable determinants of effective intervention implementation or outcomes.

Journal

American Journal of Health Promotion – SAGE

Published: Mar 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.