Realist Approach to Social Policies (RASP) study to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities through systems change: protocol for a research project combining mixed-methods realist research with institutional action research.

INTRODUCTION: Health inequalities are rooted in inequality in vital resources for health, including financial resources, a supportive informal network, a stable living situation, work or daytime activities or education and literacy. About 25% of Dutch citizens experience deprivation of such resources. Social policy consists of crucial instruments for improving resources in those groups but can also have adverse effects and lead to additional burdens. This project aims to contribute to the reduction of health inequalities through (1) a better understanding of how social policy interventions can contribute to reducing health inequality through the redistribution of burdens and resources and (2) developing anticipatory governance strategies to implement those insights, contributing to a change in social policy systems. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two systems approaches are combined for establishing a systems change in the Netherlands. First, a realist approach enables insights into what in social policy interventions may impact health outcomes, for whom and under what circumstances. Second, an institutional approach enables scaling up these insights, by acknowledging the crucial role of institutional actors for accomplishing a systems change. Together with stakeholders, we perform a realist review of the literature and identify existing promising social policy interventions. Next, we execute mixed-methods realist evaluations of selected social policy interventions in seven municipalities, ranging from small, mid-size to large, and in both urban and rural settings. Simultaneously, through action research with (national) institutional actors, we facilitate development of anticipatory governance strategies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is not liable to the Medical Research Involving Subjects Act (WMO). Informed consent to participate in the study is obtained from participants for the use of all forms of personally identifiable data. Dissemination will be codeveloped with target populations and includes communication materials for citizens, education materials for students, workshops, infographics and decision tools for policy-makers and publications for professionals.

Process evaluation of workplace health promotion in a sheltered workplace: a care ethics perspective.

Despite the potential health benefits of workplace health promotion for employees in sheltered workplaces, participation is often limited. The aim of this study was (i) to understand this limited participation, and (ii) to find opportunities for adapting workplace health promotion, such that it better meets the needs of the target population. A responsive process evaluation of an extensive multi-component workplace health promotion program targeting lifestyle behaviors, financial behaviors, literacy and citizenship, was performed in a large, sheltered workplace in the Netherlands (>3500 employees). To understand the limited participation, interviews with employees (n = 8), supervisors (n = 7) and managers (n = 2), and 10 participant observations were performed. To find opportunities for improving workplace health promotion in the sheltered workplace, 7 dialogs with employees were performed (n = 30). The interview data on the barriers for participation were evaluated through the lens of care ethics, as this allowed to understand the role of various stakeholders in the limited participation, as well as the indirect role of the institutional context. Findings showed that participation in workplace health promotion could increase if it is organized in a way that it encourages employees to work on health together, allow to tailor activities to different needs and capabilities of employees, and connects activities to employees' daily lives. A strength of this study is that the responsive process evaluation focused both on barriers for participation, as well as on opportunities to increase participation.

People who cannot participate in work without adaptations, for example, due to disability, can work in sheltered workplaces. These employees face various health risks, which are prompted by, for example, low income or low (health) literacy. More and more sheltered workplaces provide health promotion programs to improve health of their employees, such as educational workshops about physical exercise and healthy nutrition. However, participation of employees in such programs is limited. In this study, we investigated why participation is limited, and what are possible ways to make workplace health promotion programs that aim to improve health more attractive to employees in a sheltered workplace. We used different methods, such as interviews, group dialogs and participant observations. We concluded that workplace health promotion programs seem to rely too much on the individual employee, who prefers to work on health together with peers. Employees also value that activities in the health program are useful for their daily lives. This increases the relevance of the program for them and makes employees more inclined to participate.

Responsive evaluation: an innovative evaluation methodology for workplace health promotion interventions.

Background: Workplace health promotion (WHP) interventions have limited effects on the health of employees with low socioeconomic position (SEP). This paper argues that this limited effectiveness can be partly explained by the methodology applied to evaluate the intervention, often a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Frequently, the desired outcomes of traditional evaluations may not match employees'-and in particular employees with low SEP-needs and lifeworld. Furthermore, traditional evaluation methodologies do not function well in work settings characterised by change resulting from internal and external developments. Objective: In this communication, responsive evaluation is proposed as an alternative approach to evaluating WHP interventions. Responsive evaluation's potential added value for WHP interventions for employees with low SEP in particular is described, as well as how the methodology differs from RCTs. The paper also elaborates on the different scientific philosophies underpinning the two methodologies as this allows researchers to judge the suitability and quality of responsive evaluation in light of the corresponding criteria for good science.

Stakeholder dialogue on dilemmas at work as a workplace health promotion intervention including employees with a low SEP: a Responsive Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the perceived changes of an innovative workplace health promotion intervention and evaluation. In this study, a bottom-up approach was taken to define the central themes and relevant outcomes of an intervention. These central themes and relevant outcomes of the intervention were defined together with stakeholders, including employees with a low socioeconomic position. METHODS: The intervention consisted of a series of structured stakeholder dialogues in which dilemmas around the - by employees defined -health themes were discussed. The intervention was implemented in a harbor service provider with approximately 400 employees. Over a two-year period, 57 participants engaged in eight dialogues of one hour. 15 interviews and six participant observations took place for the evaluation of the intervention. RESULTS: Together with the stakeholders, high workload and mental health were defined as central themes for the dialogue intervention in the male-dominated workplace. The dialogue intervention contributed to changes, on different levels: individual, team, and organization. Overall, the stakeholder dialogues advanced the understanding of factors contributing to high workload and mental health. In reply to this, several actions were taken on a organizational level. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a bottom-up approach in WHP allows to understand the health issues that are important in the daily reality of employees with a low socioeconomic position. Through this understanding, workplace health promotion can become more suitable and relevant for employees with a low socioeconomic position. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NRT): NL8051. Registration date: 28/09/2019, Retrospectively registered https://www.trialregister.nl.

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion programs on self-perceived health of employees with a low socioeconomic position: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether workplace health promotion programs improve self-perceived health of employees with a low socioeconomic position (SEP), and whether differential effects exist between individuals with a low SEP for gender, marital status or age. Individual participant data from six Dutch intervention studies aiming at promoting healthy behavior and preventing obesity in the work setting, with a total of 1906 participants, were used. The overall intervention effect and interaction effects for gender, marital status and age were evaluated using two-stage meta-analyses with linear mixed regression models. In the first stage effect sizes of each study were estimated, which were pooled in the second stage. Compared to control conditions, workplace health promotion programs did not show an overall improvement in self-perceived health of employees with a low SEP (ß0.03 (95%CI: -0.03 to 0.09)). Effects did not differ across gender, marital status and age. Future research could be focused on the determinants of self-perceived health next to health behavior to improve the health of employees with a low SEP.

Determinants of overburdening among informal carers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The world's population is ageing, resulting in rising care demands and healthcare costs, which in turn lead to a shift from formal to informal care. However, not only is the number of potential informal carers fast decreasing, but also informal caregivers are experiencing a higher caregiver burden. This literature review aims to synthesize the literature on the common determinants of caregiver burden in Western countries, to help ensure future continuation of informal care in the home context, and to improve or sustain the quality of life of caregivers and patients alike. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles included in PubMed, Scopus, and/or PsychInfo was conducted. RESULTS: Seventeen articles were included. The most important predictors were the duration of caregiving and the patient's dependency level, in terms of both physical and mental dependency stemming from decreased cognitive capacity or behavioural problems. Some specific illnesses and role conflicts or captivity also increased caregiver burden, whereas social support lowered it. Being a female caregiver or having an adult-child relationship led to a higher burden. CONCLUSIONS: The most important predictors of caregiver burden are the duration of caregiving and the patient's dependency level. In addition, the patient's behavioural problems and cognitive capacity determine dependency level, and thus care burden. Interventions to relieve burden need to be adapted to the illness trajectory of specific diseases and corresponding needs for social support for both the recipient and the caregiver. Changing role expectations, leading to men being more involved, could reduce the disproportionately high burden for women.

Responsive evaluation of stakeholder dialogue as a worksite health promotion intervention to contribute to the reduction of SEP related health inequalities: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Large health inequalities exist in the Netherlands among individuals with a high compared to a low socioeconomic position. Worksite health promotion interventions are considered promising to reduce these inequalities, however, current interventions seem not to have the desired effects. This study proposes 'moral case deliberation', a form of stakeholder dialogue on moral dilemmas, as an integrated and inclusive intervention for worksite health promotion. This intervention takes into account three factors that are considered possible underlying causes of low effectiveness of current interventions, namely the lack of deliberate attention to: 1) the diverging values and interests of stakeholders in worksite health promotion, 2) the ethical issues of worksite health promotion, and 3) the connection with the lived experience (lifeworld) of lower SEP employees. Moral case deliberation will help to gain insight in the conflicting values in worksite health promotion, which contributes to the development of a vision for worksite health promotion that is supported by all parties. METHODS: The intervention will be evaluated through Responsive Evaluation, a form of participatory research. Key to Responsive Evaluation is that stakeholders are consulted to determine relevant changes as a result of the intervention. The intervention will be evaluated yearly at both fixed moments (baseline and annual evaluation(s)) and continuously. Mixed methods will be used, including interviews, participatory observations, analyses of HRM-data and short questionnaires. In addition, the intervention will be evaluated economically, on both monetary and non-monetary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This protocol proposes an innovative intervention and a novel participatory evaluation in the context of worksite health promotion. The study aims to gain understanding in how dialogue on moral dilemmas on health and health promotion can contribute to heightened personal and mutual understanding among stakeholders and practice improvements in the work context. By evaluating the intervention in more than one setting, findings of this study will provide knowledge about how MCD can be adapted to specific work settings and what changes it may lead to in these settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NRT): NL8051. Registration date: 28/09/2019, retrospectively registered. https://www.trialregister.nl/.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of a Mindfulness-Based Worksite Intervention: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a mindfulness-based worksite intervention to usual practice. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-seven governmental research institute employees were randomized to the intervention or control group. Intervention group participants received an eight-week mindfulness training, e-coaching, and supporting elements. Outcomes included work engagement, general vitality, job satisfaction, work ability, and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the societal and employer's perspective, and a return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective. RESULTS: After 12 months, a significant but not clinically relevant adverse effect on work engagement was found (-0.19; 95% confidence interval: -0.38 to -0.01). There were no significant differences in job satisfaction, general vitality, work ability, and total costs. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were low (≤0.25) and the intervention did not have a positive financial return to the employer. CONCLUSION: The intervention was neither cost-saving nor cost-effective. Poor e-coaching compliance might partly explain this result.

Ethical considerations of worksite health promotion: an exploration of stakeholders' views.

BACKGROUND: Developing, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion requires dealing with all stakeholders involved, such as employers, employees, occupational physicians, insurance companies, providers, labour unions and research and knowledge institutes. Although worksite health promotion is becoming more common, empirical research on ethical considerations of worksite health promotion is scarce. METHODS: We explored the views of stakeholders involved in worksite health promotion in focus group discussions and we described the ethical considerations that result from differences between these views. The focus group discussions were organised per stakeholder group. Data were analysed according to the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Our analyses show that although the definition of occupational health is the same for all stakeholders, namely 'being able to perform your job', there seem to be important differences in the views on what constitutes a risk factor to occupational health. According to the employees, risk factors to occupational health are prevailingly job-related. Labour unions agree with them, but other stakeholders, including the employer, particularly see employee-related issues such as lifestyle behaviour as risk factors to occupational health. The difference in definition of occupational health risk factors translates into the same categorisation of worksite health promotion; employee-related activities and work-related activities. The difference in conceptualisation of occupational health risk factors and worksite health promotion resonates in the way stakeholders understand 'responsibility' for lifestyle behaviour. Even though all stakeholders agree on whose responsibility lifestyle behaviour is, namely that of the employee, the meaning of 'responsibility' differs between employees, and employers. For employees, responsibility means autonomy, while for employers and other stakeholders, responsibility equals duty. This difference may in turn contribute to ambivalent relationships between stakeholders. CONCLUSION: All stakeholders, including employees, should be given a voice in developing, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion. Moreover, since stakeholders agree on lifestyle being the responsibility of the employee, but disagree on what this responsibility means (duty versus autonomy), it is of utmost importance to examine the discourse of stakeholders. This way, ambivalence in relationships between stakeholders could be prevented.

Effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness-related multi-component health promotion intervention on work engagement and mental health: results of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness-related multi-component health promotion intervention on work engagement, mental health, need for recovery and mindfulness. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial design, 257 workers of two research institutes participated. The intervention group (n = 129) received a targeted mindfulness-related training, followed by e-coaching. The total duration of the intervention was 6 months. Data on work engagement, mental health, need for recovery and mindfulness were collected using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months follow-up. Effects were analyzed using linear mixed effect models. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in work engagement, mental health, need for recovery and mindfulness between the intervention and control group after either 6- or 12-months follow-up. Additional analyses in mindfulness-related training compliance subgroups (high and low compliance versus the control group as a reference) and subgroups based on baseline work engagement scores showed no significant differences either. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show an effect of this worksite mindfulness-related multi-component health promotion intervention on work engagement, mental health, need for recovery and mindfulness after 6 and 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2199.

Effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness-based multi-component intervention on lifestyle behaviors.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight and obesity are associated with an increased risk of morbidity. Mindfulness training could be an effective strategy to optimize lifestyle behaviors related to body weight gain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness-based multi-component intervention on vigorous physical activity in leisure time, sedentary behavior at work, fruit intake and determinants of these behaviors. The control group received information on existing lifestyle behavior- related facilities that were already available at the worksite. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial design (n = 257), 129 workers received a mindfulness training, followed by e-coaching, lunch walking routes and fruit. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months using questionnaires. Physical activity was also measured using accelerometers. Effects were analyzed using linear mixed effect models according to the intention-to-treat principle. Linear regression models (complete case analyses) were used as sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in lifestyle behaviors and determinants of these behaviors between the intervention and control group after 6 or 12 months. The sensitivity analyses showed effect modification for gender in sedentary behavior at work at 6-month follow-up, although the main analyses did not. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not show an effect of a worksite mindfulness-based multi-component intervention on lifestyle behaviors and behavioral determinants after 6 and 12 months. The effectiveness of a worksite mindfulness-based multi-component intervention as a health promotion intervention for all workers could not be established.

An exploratory study of associations of physical activity with mental health and work engagement.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) to be associated with a decreased risk of mental disorders. Although the focus in the field of psychology has shifted towards human strengths and optimal functioning, studies examining associations between MVPA and mental health in general (MH) and between MVPA and well-being are scarce. An indicator of work-related well-being is work engagement (WE). The aim of this study was to explore the associations between MVPA and MH, and between MVPA and WE. METHODS: In this study, a total of 257 employees from two research institutes, self-reported their MVPA, MH and level of WE. In addition, a randomly chosen subgroup (n=100) wore an Actigraph accelerometer for a 1-week period to measure their MVPA objectively. Crude and adjusted associations between MVPA and both WE and MH were analyzed using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant association between self-reported MVPA and mental health, resulting from both the crude (b=0.058, 95% CI -0.118 - 0.235) and adjusted analyses (b=0.026; 95% CI -0.158- 0.210), nor between objectively measured MVPA and mental health for both crude and adjusted analyses (b=-0.144; 95% CI -1.315- 1.027; b=-0.199; 95% CI 1.417- 1.018 respectively). There was also no significant association between self-reported MVPA and work engagement (crude: b=0.005; 95% CI -0.005-0.016, adjusted: b= 0.002; 95% CI -0.010- 0.013), nor between objectively measured MVPA and work engagement (crude: b= 0.012; 95% CI -0.084- 0.060, adjusted: b=0.007; 95% CI -0.083-0.069). CONCLUSIONS: Although the beneficial effects of MVPA on the negative side of MH (i.e. mental disorders) have been established in previous studies, this study found no evidence for the beneficial effects of MVPA on positive side of MH (i.e. well-being). The possible difference in how the physical activity-mental health relationship works for negative and positive sides of MH should be considered in future studies.

Process evaluation of a workplace health promotion intervention aimed at improving work engagement and energy balance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the process of the implementation of an intervention aimed at improving work engagement and energy balance, and to explore associations between process measures and compliance. METHODS: Process measures were assessed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: The mindfulness training was attended at least once by 81.3% of subjects, and 54.5% were highly compliant. With regard to e-coaching and homework exercises, 6.3% and 8.0%, respectively, were highly compliant. The training was appreciated with a 7.5 score and e-coaching with a 6.8 score. Appreciation of training and e-coaching, satisfaction with trainer and coach, and practical facilitation were significantly associated with compliance. CONCLUSION: The intervention was implemented well on the level of the mindfulness training, but poorly on the level of e-coaching and homework time investment. To increase compliance, attention should be paid to satisfaction and trainer-participant relationship.

Mindful "Vitality in Practice": an intervention to improve the work engagement and energy balance among workers; the development and design of the randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Modern working life has become more mental and less physical in nature, contributing to impaired mental health and a disturbed energy balance. This may result in mental health problems and overweight. Both are significant threats to the health of workers and thus also a financial burden for society, including employers. Targeting work engagement and energy balance could prevent impaired mental health and overweight, respectively. METHODS/DESIGN: The study population consists of highly educated workers in two Dutch research institutes. The intervention was systematically developed, based on the Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol, involving workers and management in the process. The workers' needs were assessed by combining the results of interviews, focus group discussions and a questionnaire with available literature. Suitable methods and strategies were selected resulting in an intervention including: eight weeks of customized mindfulness training, followed by eight sessions of e-coaching and supporting elements, such as providing fruit and snack vegetables at the workplace, lunch walking routes, and a buddy system. The effects of the intervention will be evaluated in a RCT, with measurements at baseline, six months (T1) and 12 months (T2). In addition, cost-effectiveness and process of the intervention will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: At baseline the level of work engagement of the sample was "average". Of the study population, 60.1% did not engage in vigorous physical activity at all. An average working day consists of eight sedentary hours. For the Phase II RCT, there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control group at baseline, except for vigorous physical activity. The baseline characteristics of the study population were congruent with the results of the needs assessment. The IM protocol used for the systematic development of the intervention produced an appropriate intervention to test in the planned RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2199.