Back

A mixed methods process evaluation of a peer coaching intervention to improve the implementation of preventive tasks by occupational physicians

Orhan Pees, S.; van Oostrom, S.; Schaafsma, F.; Proper, K.

2024-11-08 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2024.11.07.24316899 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the process of implementation of a peer coaching intervention program for occupational physicians (OPs) to improve the execution of preventive tasks. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to: (1) describe the reach and uptake of the intervention program; (2) determine the extent to which the program was implemented as intended; (3) provide insights into experiences of OPs, and (4) identify factors influencing the implementation. MethodsThis study employed a mixed-methods approach to assess seven main process indicators: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration and sustainability. Data were collected between March and June 2024 by means of an online questionnaire (N=98), and 17 semi-structured interviews with group coordinators and OPs. Results20 out of 21 groups allocated to the intervention program participated in the intervention and 98 out of 115 participants (85%) filled in the questionnaire. Three-quarters of the participants completed the entire program. 96% of the OPs successfully discussed barriers to the execution of preventive tasks, and 83% were able to formulate strategies for these barriers. Most participants managed to implement their formulated goals in practice. When they were unable to do so, time constraints and resistance from employers and their occupational health services often played a role. OPs valued the programs structure, interaction with colleagues, and the increased awareness it generated. Discussion and conclusionThe peer coaching group program was well-implemented and positively evaluated by OPs. The program can be improved by allocating more time to it, for instance by integrating it into the educational curriculum, and by paying more attention to the specific working conditions of OPs, such as the different sectors in which they are employed. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry; ISRCTN15394765. Registered on 27 June 2023.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
2
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.3%
3
Journal of Occupational Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
9.1%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
8
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
9
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
11
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
12
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.7%
14
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
American Journal of Infection Control
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
17
BMC Medical Education
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
18
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
Antibiotics
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
25
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
26
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%