> Detailanzeige

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.

Process evaluation of two participatory approaches: Implementing total worker health® interventions in a correctional workforce

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Process evaluation of two participatory approaches: Implementing total worker health® interventions in a correctional workforce
  • Beteiligte: 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.
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2016
  • Erschienen in: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22593
  • ISSN: 0271-3586; 1097-0274
  • Schlagwörter: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Method</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Both programs yielded successful and unsuccessful interventions, dependent upon team‐, facility‐, organizational, state‐, facilitator‐, and intervention‐level factors.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>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.</jats:p></jats:sec>