Region Västra Götaland, Institute of Stress Medicine, Carl Skottbergs Gata 22B, 413 19, Gothenburg, Sweden.
School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2024 Apr;97(3):341-351. doi: 10.1007/s00420-024-02048-0. Epub 2024 Feb 27.
Evaluations of organizational-level interventions to prevent work-related illness have identified enabling factors, but knowledge of necessary and sufficient conditions for intervention success is needed. The aim was to identify difference-making factors that distinguish intervention groups with and without a positive intervention effect on sickness absence.
An organizational-level intervention designed to decrease sickness absence by providing support from process facilitators was implemented at eight healthcare workplaces in Sweden between 2017 and 2018. We applied coincidence analysis (CNA) to analyze 34 factors and determine which factors were necessary and sufficient for a successful implementation of tailored interventional measures on an organizational level (dichotomous) and reduced sickness absence (trichotomous).
Two factors perfectly explained both the presence and absence of a successful implementation: "a high sense of urgency" and "good anchoring and participation from the strategic management". The presence of either of these factors alone was sufficient for successful implementation, whereas the joint absence of both conditions was necessary and sufficient for the absence of successful implementation and an intervention effect. In addition, high employee participation was both necessary and sufficient for a high intervention effect. For organizations without high employee participation, successful implementation led to a medium-effect size.
This study identified participation as a difference-maker in the implementation process. Participation from different stakeholders turned out to be important in different phases. When implementing organizational-level interventions, high participation from both strategic management and employees appears to be crucial in terms of the intervention's effect on sickness absence.
评估组织层面的干预措施以预防与工作相关的疾病,已经确定了促成因素,但需要了解干预成功的必要和充分条件。本研究旨在确定区分干预组与无积极干预病假效果的干预组的差异因素。
2017 年至 2018 年期间,在瑞典的 8 家医疗保健工作场所实施了一项组织层面的干预措施,旨在通过提供流程促进者的支持来减少病假。我们应用一致性分析(CNA)来分析 34 个因素,并确定哪些因素是在组织层面实施有针对性的干预措施(二分变量)和减少病假(三分变量)所必需和充分的。
有两个因素可以完美地解释成功实施和不成功实施的存在:“高度紧迫感”和“战略管理的良好锚定和参与”。这两个因素中的任何一个单独存在就足以实现成功实施,而这两个条件同时不存在则是不成功实施和干预效果缺失的必要和充分条件。此外,员工的高度参与对于干预效果的提高是必要和充分的。对于员工参与度不高的组织,成功实施导致中等效应量。
本研究确定了参与是实施过程中的一个差异因素。不同利益相关者的参与在不同阶段都很重要。在实施组织层面的干预措施时,战略管理层和员工的高度参与似乎对干预措施对病假的影响至关重要。