Skip to main content

Table 1 Requirements for successful implementation, their operationalization and data source

From: Evaluating the implementation process of a participatory organizational level occupational health intervention in schools

Intervention phase 1: needs assessment Source
No. Process component Requirement based on program theory Operationalization Quan. Qual.
     Q1 Q2 Logs I1 I2
1 Initiationa Were senior and middle management committed to the intervention at the start? • Reasons for middle and senior management to participate    X   X
2 Communicationa Was the intervention project communicated to the employees at the start? • The manner in which the project was communicated to the participants    X   
3 Participationa Was a participatory group formed? Did the employees feel involved in the intervention? • Composition of group and procedure was in line with protocol
• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘employee involvement’ scale at T1
X   X   X
4 Fidelitya Was intervention phase 1 delivered by HM facilitator according to protocol? • The extent to which the HM facilitator complied with the needs assessment protocol, according to the facilitator and researcher    X   
5 Reacha Was intervention phase 1 received by majority of the employees? • Attendance of employees in each step of the needs assessment according to objective attendance rates. The rate expresses the number of those who actually participated in each step out of those who were asked to participate in each step.
• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘exposure’ scale at T1
X   X   
6 Communicationa Were results of each step in phase 1 communicated to employees by HM facilitator? • Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 1 interviews
• Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 2 questionnaires
• Percentage of participants who reported to have received a report of intervention step 3 group sessions
X     
7 Satisfactiona Were the employees satisfied with intervention phase 1? • Satisfaction of all employees with (elements of the) needs assessment (ie interviews, questionnaire, group session, advisory report, overall) was moderate (≥6–7.4) or high (≥7.5)d X    X  
8 Middle management supporta Was managerial support present at T1 according to management and employees? • The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘line manager attitudes and actions’ scale at T1
• The managers demonstrated their support of the advisory report
X    X  
9 Readiness for changec Was the majority of the employees at T1 ready for the change? • The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘readiness for change’ scale at T1 X     
Intervention phase 2: implementation
No. Process component Requirement based on program theory Operationalization Quan. Qual.
     Q1 Q2 Logs I1 I2
10 Middle management supporta Was an action plan formulated by middle managers based on the advisory report?
Were quick wins formulated?
• Middle managers visibly supported the project by designing an action plan including quick wins
• The majority of the employees scored above the cut-off point on the ‘line manager attitudes and actions’ scale at T2
  X    X
11 Participationa Did employees participate in formulating an action plan? • The extent to which employees felt responsible for the action plan and the result of implementing the action plan (ie ownership)
• The majority of the employees scored above the cut-off point on the ‘employee involvement’ scale at T2
• Formal representatives had a role
• Middle managers encouraged active participation by employees
  X    X
12 Targetinga Did the action plan target the right problems in the workplace? • The action plan was applicable to the problems of the workplace
• Satisfaction with content action plan was moderate (6.0–7.4) or high (≥7.5)
  X    X
13 Senior management supporta Did senior management support the action plan? • Senior managers supported the project throughout
• Senior managers allocated the necessary resources
   X   X
14 Communicationa Was the action plan communicated to the employees?
Were small successes celebrated?
• Employees were informed about the action plan and the progress towards its goals
• Small successes were celebrated
  X X   
15 Deliverya Was the action plan implemented by middle managers? • Perceived implementation of the action plan, including quick wins, according to the implementers      X
16 Exposurea Were the employees exposed to implementation of the action plan? • Perceived implementation of the action plan, including quick wins, according to the employees
• The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘exposure to intended intervention’ scale at T2
  X    X
17 Cultureb Did the organizational culture facilitate the implementation of the action plan? • Inherent characteristics of the organizational culture that facilitated or impeded the implementation of the action plan      X
18 Conditionsb Did the organization have the capacity to implement the action plan? • The organizational characteristics that affected the (implementation) of the action plan
• The organization had the capacity and skills to implement the action plan
     X
19 Eventsb Did no events interfere with the implementation of the action plan? • Events that occurred and influenced the content or the execution of the action plan    X   X
20 Readiness for changec Was the majority of the employees at T2 ready for the change? • The majority of the participants scored above the cut-off point on the ‘readiness for change’ scale at T2
• The extent to which employees were ready for change and how this influenced the execution of the action plan
  X    X
21 Satisfactiona Were the employees satisfied with intervention phase 2? • Satisfaction with intervention phase 2 was moderate (6.0–7.4) or high (≥7.5)d   X    X
22 Perceptionc Did implementers and employees perceive the intervention as positive? • The perception of the action plan was positive
• Identify the common grounds and changes in the perception of the action plan
     X
  1. Note. Quan. quantitative data, ieT1 and T2 questionnaires, Qual. qualitative data, ie logs and T1 and T2 interviews, Q1 questionnaire at T1, Q2 questionnaire at T2, Logs continuous records by logbooks, I1 interviews at T1, I2 group interviews at T2
  2. a‘intervention’ theme of process evaluation framework
  3. b‘context’ theme of process evaluation framework
  4. c‘mental models’ theme of process evaluation framework
  5. dSatisfaction was rated on a 1–10 scale (1 = very unsatisfied; 10 = very satisfied) and the average satisfaction rate could be classified as poor (<6), moderate (≥6 and <7.5) or good (≥7.5)