Tsc Promotion Interview Results 2023 Pdf Download

To better understand the institutionalization process in Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH) intervention and control schools, 199 key informant interviews were conducted with school food service staff, physical education teachers, classroom teachers, and administrators at the four CATCH-ON field centers. School personnel were asked to talk about the degree of CATCH program implementation, who at the school or school district was instrumental in promoting CATCH, and the conditions that facilitated or impeded the institutionalization of CATCH activities and philosophies. The CATCH Physical Education (PE) component appeared to have the highest level of institutionalization, and the CATCH classroom curriculum and family components appeared to have the lowest levels of institutionalization. The primary barriers expressed included the low priority for health promotion activities and time constraints of schools: lack of mechanisms for training of school staff; and lack of sufficient funds for materials, equipment, and lower fat vendor products.

Workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) have shown to be effective in improving lifestyle behaviors of employees. Despite potential benefits for employees, participation rates are generally low. The aim of this study was to gain deeper insight into barriers and facilitators for participation in WHPPs prior to implementation according to employees.

Download Zip 🔥 https://urllie.com/2y7YRS 🔥

Fourteen peer-interviewers conducted 62 peer-to-peer interviews. Main barriers for participation in WHPPs were an unsupportive organizational culture where lifestyle is not a common topic and programs that are not tailored to their needs. Support from peers and supervisors were facilitators. The availability of organizational resources, such as facilities and financial compensation, support participation.

The workplace is an ideal setting to promote a healthy lifestyle, among others as it can reach a large group of adults and because of existing infrastructures for interventions (Goldgruber and Ahrens 2009; Robroek et al. 2009). Employers can implement health promoting activities on top of their legal responsibility to secure sustainable working conditions for their employees. Effectiveness of workplace health promotion (WHP) on several targeted lifestyle behaviors such as diet, physical activity, and psychological health is demonstrated in multiple studies (Carolan et al. 2017; Maes et al. 2012; Proper and van Oostrom 2019; Verweij et al. 2011). Employees can benefit in terms of improved lifestyle, and eventually improved health. WHP programs (WHPPs) have proven to be effective in weight loss, increased psychological wellbeing and perceived health of employees (Carolan et al. 2017; Rongen et al. 2013; Verweij et al. 2011). Despite the potential benefits for employees, reported participation rates of WHPPs vary greatly. Robroek et al. found that participation levels varied from 10 to 64%, with a median of 33% (Robroek et al. 2009). Low levels of participation can negatively affect the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of WHPPs and limit their reach and impact (Linnan et al. 2001; Robroek et al. 2009, 2021). Both adequate implementation and high levels of participation are crucial factors for the effectiveness of a WHPP (Durlak and DuPre 2008; Linnan et al. 2001; Robroek et al. 2009, 2021).

For this study we used a qualitative design, employing peer-to-peer interviews. Peer-to-peer interviewing is a method derived from citizen science, which means that participants actively engage in carrying out research (Den Broeder et al. 2018; Tsui and Franzosa 2018). Peer-to-peer interviews have several benefits, such as efficient data collection and participants are considered to respond more genuinely to their peers, which leads to less socially desirable answers (Byrne et al. 2015; Devotta et al. 2016; Tsui and Franzosa 2018). Data were collected between October 2020 and January 2021.

The Center for Clinical Expertise of the Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment classified the study as exempt from ethical review as it did not meet the criteria of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Acts. The center approved the study protocol (study number VPZ-458). Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees and the peer-interviewers.

Peer-interviewers and interviewees for the current qualitative study were recruited within two of the organizations that agreed to participate in the c-RCT. A cleaning company and two departments of a University of Applied Sciences, the ICT- and a facility-department. Peer-interviewers were recruited by (1) supervisors within the organization who informed employees about the study and asked them to participate as a peer-interviewer, or (2) a short presentation by one of the researchers (DS) on the aim and process of the peer-interviewing. Afterwards employees could sign up as a peer-interviewer. All employees who spoke and understood Dutch were eligible to participate as a peer-interviewer, with the exception of employees in a management position. None of the peer-interviewers had prior interview experience. Peer-interviewers were asked to interview five co-workers from their department who differed in age, sex, and job function, to create a heterogenic study population.

All peer-interviewers followed an online training of 2 hours, provided by the researchers. In the training, they were educated on how to conduct an interview with a co-worker, were informed about how to obtain informed consent from their co-workers, practiced their interview skills with other peer-interviewers and received feedback from the researchers.

The interviews were semi-structured and included three main questions: (1) about what employees think about when it comes to lifestyle; (2) about the current offer of WHPPs by their employer and whether and why they would participate or not and; (3) about the way they would like to be informed about WHPPs within their organization. To assist the peer-interviewers, they received cards with interview instructions, information about the study, main questions, sub-questions per main question and tips for further follow-up questions. Furthermore, they were instructed to listen carefully to their co-workers and adapt and personalize the follow-up questions when deemed appropriate. Additionally, age, sex, working hours, years of working at the organization and job type were asked. The main and sub-questions are depicted in Table 1. One-on-one interviews were performed at the workplace and could be face-to-face or online. This depended on the work situation of the peer-interviewers, since working from home was part of the COVID-19 restrictions at the time of this study. Interviews were audio or online recorded.

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and, after familiarization, analyzed by two researchers (DS, JC). Two steps of the analysis of qualitative data according to the CFIR were followed: (1) thematic coding and (2) rating. In the first step, the existing codebook of the CFIR with the additional constructs of the social ecological model was used to code the data (Damschroder et al. 2009; Linnan et al. 2001). A hybrid approach was applied, which allows for both inductive and deductive coding (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). Additional codes that emerged from the data were added to the codebook (inductive). In total, 21 constructs of the CFIR and two constructs of the social ecological model were used and seven constructs were added (Fig. 1). The MAXQDA 2020 software was used for the thematic coding process. In total, six interviews were double coded independently by the two researchers, afterwards the interviews were compared and discussed until consensus was reached. The remaining interviews were divided under the researchers, coded, and checked by the other researcher. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. A third researcher (SO) was consulted in case of disagreement. Due to the hybrid approach, the codebook was continuously enriched with new codes, prior coded interviews were recoded if necessary.

Multiple other studies that identified barriers and/or facilitators according to employees were found with some similar findings (Nhammer et al. 2010, 2013; Person et al. 2010; Robroek et al. 2012; Rongen et al. 2014). A perceived healthy lifestyle was a frequently mentioned barrier (Robroek et al. 2012; Rongen et al. 2014), a barrier that also came forward in our study. This might imply that employees are indeed already engaged in a healthy lifestyle or that they do not recognize that their lifestyle needs improvement. Misperceptions about health and lifestyle are a known barrier for adapting lifestyle behaviors in general, possibly due to a lack of knowledge or awareness (Tonnon et al. 2014). For instance, there often is a lack of knowledge about the different health effects of exercising in leisure time and occupational physical activity (OPA) (Holtermann et al. 2018). Literature shows that OPA can negatively affect health, whereas exercising in leisure time can benefit health (Holtermann et al. 2018). We found that employees with physically demanding jobs indicate that they do not need to exercise, because of the high OPA. This finding might imply a lack of knowledge about lifestyle and health, specifically for physical activity. Or it might suggest that employees with physically demanding jobs experience a lack of energy due to high OPA, which can be a barrier for participation in physical activity in leisure time. Other reasons for non-participation, in line with our findings, were not knowing about a WHPP, a preference to keep work and private life separate, inconvenient locations and a lack of time (Nhammer et al. 2010, 2013; Person et al. 2010; Robroek et al. 2012; Rongen et al. 2014). A strategy to overcome the latter barrier might be participation in WHPPs during working hours. Nevertheless, our results indicate that when there is a lack of flexibility of work, e.g. not able to leave the workplace, a WHPP during working hours is a barrier. This emphasizes the importance of taking into account the resources, including private time and working schedules, of employees when implementing a WHPP. Various characteristics of individuals were identified as a barrier for participation in WHPPs in our study. These constructs might also be affected by organizational factors. For instance, a lack of energy and time might be explained by high (physical or mental) job demands or a lack of flexibility of work. Prioritizing family and friends over WHPPs has to do with work-life balance, which in turn might be related to the perceived workload as well. From other research it was observed that facilitators were social support from supervisors and co-workers and a positive attitude (Nhammer et al. 2010; Rongen et al. 2014). These findings were in line with our data. Additionally, we found that a negative attitude or no belief in WHP hampered participation. According to Rongen et al., other factors that play an important role in whether an employee decides to participate or not are the preferences of an employee and the organizational environment (Rongen et al. 2014). These findings are supported by our findings and other literature (Nhammer et al. 2010, 2013; Person et al. 2010). 006ab0faaa