Unit of Intervention and Implementation Research for worker health, Institute for Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm 171 77, Sweden.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2023 Sep 1;49(6):428-438. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.4108. Epub 2023 Jul 23.
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the multifaceted implementation strategy (multifaceted group) versus a discrete implementation strategy (discrete group) for implementing the Swedish Guideline for the Prevention of Mental Ill-health Problems at the Workplace on the primary intervention outcome - exhaustion - and secondary outcomes of stress, health, recovery, psychosocial safety climate, and social and organizational risk factors. Another aim was to examine whether the primary and secondary outcomes differed on the basis of guideline adherence levels, irrespective of the group.
A cluster-randomized waiting-list controlled trial with 6- and 12-months follow-up was conducted among 19 Swedish public schools. Primary and secondary outcomes as well as guideline adherence were assessed by self-reported questionnaire. Linear mixed modeling was used to compare differences in outcomes between the groups from baseline to 6 and 12 months, and in relation to different adherence levels.
The trial comprised 698 employees (83.1%) participated. There were no differences between groups in the primary and secondary outcomes at 6 months, while at 12 months differences were observed for some outcomes to the advantage of the discrete group. Better guideline adherence was associated with improvements in exhaustion at 12 months and the secondary outcomes of psychosocial safety climate, work organization and job content, interpersonal relations and leadership, and recovery over 6 and 12 months.
The multifaceted implementation strategy was no more effective than the discrete strategy in improving health outcomes or organizational and social work environment. However, higher adherence to the guideline was associated with larger improvements in health outcomes and organizational and social work environment, irrespective of the implementation strategy used.
本研究旨在比较多方面实施策略(多方面组)与离散实施策略(离散组)在实施瑞典预防工作场所心理健康问题指南方面的有效性,主要干预结果为疲劳,以及次要结果为压力、健康、恢复、心理社会安全氛围以及社会和组织危险因素。另一个目的是检验无论采用何种实施策略,主要和次要结果是否基于指南依从水平而有所不同。
一项针对瑞典 19 所公立学校的群组随机等待期对照试验,随访时间为 6 个月和 12 个月。主要和次要结果以及指南依从性通过自我报告问卷进行评估。采用线性混合模型比较两组从基线到 6 个月和 12 个月的结果差异,并与不同的依从水平进行比较。
共有 698 名员工(83.1%)参与了试验。在 6 个月时,两组在主要和次要结果上没有差异,而在 12 个月时,离散组在一些结果上表现出优势。更好的指南依从性与 12 个月时的疲劳改善以及心理社会安全氛围、工作组织和工作内容、人际关系和领导力以及 6 个月和 12 个月时的恢复等次要结果有关。
多方面实施策略并不比离散策略更能改善健康结果或组织和社会工作环境。然而,更高的指南依从性与健康结果以及组织和社会工作环境的更大改善有关,而与所使用的实施策略无关。