American journal of industrial medicine · 2016
Process evaluation of two participatory approaches: Implementing total worker health® interventions in a correctional workforce.
СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dugan Alicia G, Farr Dana A, Namazi Sara, Henning Robert A, Wallace Kelly N, El Ghaziri Mazen, Punnett Laura, Dussetschleger Jeffrey L, Cherniack Martin G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Correctional Officers (COs) have among the highest injury rates and poorest health of all the public safety occupations. The HITEC-2 (Health Improvement Through Employee Control-2) study uses Participatory Action Research (PAR) to design and implement interventions to improve health and safety of COs.
METHOD: HITEC-2 compared two different types of participatory program, a CO-only "Design Team" (DT) and "Kaizen Event Teams" (KET) of COs and supervisors, to determine differences in implementation process and outcomes. The Program Evaluation Rating Sheet (PERS) was developed to document and evaluate program implementation.
RESULTS: Both programs yielded successful and unsuccessful interventions, dependent upon team-, facility-, organizational, state-, facilitator-, and intervention-level factors.
CONCLUSIONS: PAR in corrections, and possibly other sectors, depends upon factors including participation, leadership, continuity and timing, resilience, and financial circumstances. The new PERS instrument may be useful in other sectors to assist in assessing intervention success. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:897-918, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
METHOD: HITEC-2 compared two different types of participatory program, a CO-only "Design Team" (DT) and "Kaizen Event Teams" (KET) of COs and supervisors, to determine differences in implementation process and outcomes. The Program Evaluation Rating Sheet (PERS) was developed to document and evaluate program implementation.
RESULTS: Both programs yielded successful and unsuccessful interventions, dependent upon team-, facility-, organizational, state-, facilitator-, and intervention-level factors.
CONCLUSIONS: PAR in corrections, and possibly other sectors, depends upon factors including participation, leadership, continuity and timing, resilience, and financial circumstances. The new PERS instrument may be useful in other sectors to assist in assessing intervention success. Am. J. Ind. Med. 59:897-918, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.