Process Evaluation of a Workers' Health Surveillance Program for Meat Processing Workers.
Berry J van Holland, Sandra Brouwer, Michiel R de Boer and 2 others
PMID 27475445WHAT IT FOUND
Questionnaire respondents were satisfied with a meat-processing health screening program, but the functional capacity and counseling parts were not reliably delivered or recorded.
For physiotherapists running workplace screening, documentation and protocol adherence need to be built in.
Key findings
01Reach differed greatly between plants, from 27.0% to 93.2%.
02Counseling and follow-up could not be assessed because their delivery and receipt were not adequately recorded.
03Participants rated the program 7.6 on a 0 to 10 scale, and 95% of questionnaire respondents would recommend it.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The follow-up questionnaire was filled out by 148 participants, and the authors note that low response may limit validity. Two plants that were initially enrolled closed during the study, and a second group from another plant was enrolled. Counseling and follow-up delivery were not registered, so parts of the program could not be assessed. Fidelity was assessed only through interviews, and objective measures were missing. Interview participants were selected purposively by risk profile, so their views may not represent all workers. The process evaluation questionnaire was partly developed by the authors, which may limit generalizability.
Declared interests
The study was funded by ZonMw. No other funding or conflict statements are provided.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that the program improves health, work ability, or employability. It was a process evaluation, and the paper states effectiveness had not yet been investigated.