Table 3 Reported barriers (B) and/or facilitators (F) in the studies included in this review
Main categories | Description of the determinants for implementation | B/F |
|---|---|---|
Characteristics of the socio-political context | 1. Compatibility of program with societal developments (attention for health in society) [74] | F |
2. Competitive business environment[53] | B | |
Characteristics of the organization | 3. Organizational reorganization: reorganization due to take over by another company [68] | B |
4. Lack of resources: financial, personnel, material (e.g., equipment, facilities) resources or lack of space or facilities [54, 57, 66, 72, 74] | B | |
5. Organizational culture: | Â | |
(a) Senior leaders emphasized the need to implement the intervention keeping the organizational culture in mind [53] | F | |
(b) Intervention did not fit the organizational culture [55, 72] | B | |
(c) The organizational culture emphasized goal setting and tracks progress towards achieving goals [53] | F | |
(d) Worksite culture supported social interaction among workers and between workers and managers [55] | F | |
6. Organizational size: | Â | |
(a) In a large organization (1000+ employees) there were numerous competing priorities and it was challenging to maintain visibility [60] | B | |
(b) In a small organization (<500 employees) it is challenging to assemble a critical mass of potential participants for participation in the intervention [60] | B | |
(c) Small organizations tend to receive more intervention components per employee than larger organizations [61] | F | |
7. Amount of company locations: Different company locations at which the intervention needs to be delivered [74] | B | |
8. Organization’s awareness of perceived benefits of investment [74], and awareness of relevance and economics of health and employee wellness [53, 60] | F | |
9. Company image: the program gives the organization a positive image since it shows that the organization cares about their employees [66] | F | |
10. Perceived responsibility of employer towards workers health and wellbeing [74] | F | |
11. High staff turnover rate among employees made it difficult to provide adequate exposure to the intervention [68, 69] | B | |
12. Good collaboration between persons/ structures/ services/ collaborative partners within or outside departments and organizations [54, 66, 72] | F | |
13. Conflicting relationship between management and researchers[68] | B | |
14. General good organizational support for health promotion [53] | F | |
15. Poor psychosocial work environment consisting of the following the subcomponents: influence at work, work pace quantitative work demands, interpersonal relations [70] | B | |
16. History of social interaction: Worksite has a history of bringing employees together for social activities and a history of positive social interaction between worker and management [55] | F | |
17. Management support: | Â | |
(a) Strong (upper) management support for intervention and general health promotion efforts at the organization [55, 60, 68, 72, 73] | F | |
B | ||
(c) Managers encouraging workers to attend intervention [55] | F | |
(d) Experienced management support are different for junior employees and senior employees [64] | B | |
(e) formal approval of upper management before start of intervention [57] | F | |
(f) Lack of perceived management support by implementers on site [74] | B | |
(h) Management commitment and willingness to provide employees with release time from their usual duties to attend intervention [55] | F | |
18. Management participation and engagement: | Â | |
(a) Active management participation and involvement alongside and with workers [55, 73] | F | |
(b) Active management engagement in planning [55] | F | |
19. Relationship between management and employees: Respectful relationship between management and worker [55] | Â | |
Characteristics of the implementer | 20. Job position of implementer: [74] | Â |
(a) Self-employed (advantage of managing his or her own time) | F | |
(b) Internal position (facilitating in scheduling appointments) | F | |
(c) external position | Â | |
21. (Perceived) Support for implementers: [74] | B | |
(a) Poor support from co- implementers | B | |
| Â | (b) Support for implementers to change their routines (applicable when implementer is an occupational physician) [74] | F |
22. Collaboration between implementers: lack of possibility to exchange experiences between implementers [74] | B | |
23. Available time of implementer: | Â | |
(a) Sufficient time available to implement intervention [56, 66, 72, 74] | F | |
(b) The intervention involved extra work on top of the heavy workload of the regular duties of the implementer [66] | B | |
(c) planning difficulties of implementers with planning al contacts in the intervention period [59] | B | |
24. Expectations of implementer: implementers expectations were met [74] | F | |
25. Absence of a project leader/ leading person/ ambassador[72] | B | |
26. Implementers’ compliance with intervention protocol [52] | F | |
27. Staff turnover among implementers: drop out of implementers (without replacing them) [69, 72] | B | |
28. Absence of decision maker among implementers: among the implementers there lacked a person who was entitled to make decision at department level [72] | B | |
29. High perceived Level of control for intervention delivery by provider/implementer [60] | F | |
30. Low level of engagement of implementers in planning, promoting and providing feedback on intervention activities [55] | B | |
31. Personnel characteristics of implementer: sufficient skills, knowledge and competence to implement guideline or intervention correctly [55, 59, 74] | F | |
Characteristics of the intervention program | 32. Degree of rewards: either financial reimbursement or other incentives [53, 68] | F |
33. Compatibility and alignment of intervention with: | Â | |
(a) organizations mission statement/business goals/ institutional policy change [53, 60, 68, 74] | F | |
(b) policy, culture, norms and current practices of organization [56, 58, 66, 72] | F | |
(c) Ease of integration of intervention in working live [64] | F | |
34. The intervention fit implementers current work [74] | F | |
35. Intervention is part of the worksites integral health policy and seen as a pilot for future health promotion policy instead of independent project [57] | F | |
36. Relative advantage: intervention is advantageous compared to the current situation and no negative consequences were observed and the company, managers, implementers and participants benefit from participation [54, 56, 66, 72, 74] | F | |
37. Time: Project took more time than expected due to high workload of administration and planning [74] | B | |
38. Complexity: Intervention was not too difficult or complex to implement and execute [56, 59, 72, 74] | F | |
39. Observability of positive results of the intervention [74] | F | |
40. Risk and uncertainty level/Triability: the degree to which an innovation can be adopted/implemented with minimal risk [56] | F | |
41. Conflicting interest between worksite and intervention [66] | B | |
42. Timing of intervention activities: intervention activities coincide with scheduled breaks [68] | F | |
43. Technical problems (e.g., equipment breaks down) [54, 69] | B | |
44. Degree of incorporation of program communication and interventions into already established communication channels or existing worksite events/meetings [53, 55] | F | |
45. Presence of advisory board: well-functioning advisory board [55] | F | |
46. Ease of access to the program by bringing the program to participants and making participation free or inexpensive [53] | F | |
Characteristics of the participant | 47. Needs of participants: | Â |
(a) Positive personal preferences for program [63] | F | |
(b) No need for intervention (e.g., already being healthy) [74] | B | |
(c) Positive program expectation [71] | F | |
(d) Prior failed attempts to maintain a healthy lifestyle [62] | B | |
48. Current workload and work structure/schedules: volume of daily tasks, overtime work, shift work, part-time work, irregular work schedules, shifts of different lengths, time-pressures [53, 60, 64, 68] | B | |
49. Work demands: Workers were unable to participate since they could not leave their work due to work demands, obligations and limited free time and flexibility to leave immediate work area [55, 57, 60, 64] | B | |
50. Time constraints of participants: lack of time, time constraints and willingness to make time to participate at work [53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 74] | B | |
51. Amount of peer leaders: Few peer leaders due to geographically separated worksites made it difficult to establish group cohesion [68] | B | |
52. Lack of social support: | Â | |
(a) No interaction with the entire workforce to build worksite-wide social norms and social support) [68] | B | |
(b) Peer support: difficult to engage in behavior not considered normal by peers [64] | B | |
53. Lack of motivation of workers to participate in intervention [54] | B | |
54. Participants self-efficacy: Low to medium self-efficacy is a barrier for participation [70] | B |