Experiences in the application of logic models in the context of workplace health promotion – A focus group discussion

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102347
Madeleine Gernert , André Arik Schuber , Andrea Schaller
{"title":"Experiences in the application of logic models in the context of workplace health promotion – A focus group discussion","authors":"Madeleine Gernert ,&nbsp;André Arik Schuber ,&nbsp;Andrea Schaller","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gathering evidence on complex workplace health promotion interventions faces methodological challenges. Therefore, the application of logic models as a theory of change is recommended to support outcome and process evaluations. The present study explores challenges and opportunities of applying logic models in application-oriented intervention research on workplace health promotion. A focus group (n = 6), consisting of scientists and workplace health promotion practitioners, was conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The recorded qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using the structuring content analysis method. According to the focus group, logic models provide several opportunities for planning and evaluating complex workplace health promotion interventions. Logic models support the communication between science and practice, and have benefits for the provider of workplace health promotion interventions. The main challenges in working with logic models were dealing with the complex and constantly developing intervention and with the derivation and implementation of reasonable evaluation methods. The focus group exposed repeated application and a shared understanding between stakeholders as facilitators for working with logic models. In conclusion, at the science-practice interface, logic models could enhance the integrative understanding and the further development of evidence-based workplace health promotion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718923001246","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gathering evidence on complex workplace health promotion interventions faces methodological challenges. Therefore, the application of logic models as a theory of change is recommended to support outcome and process evaluations. The present study explores challenges and opportunities of applying logic models in application-oriented intervention research on workplace health promotion. A focus group (n = 6), consisting of scientists and workplace health promotion practitioners, was conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The recorded qualitative data were transcribed and analysed using the structuring content analysis method. According to the focus group, logic models provide several opportunities for planning and evaluating complex workplace health promotion interventions. Logic models support the communication between science and practice, and have benefits for the provider of workplace health promotion interventions. The main challenges in working with logic models were dealing with the complex and constantly developing intervention and with the derivation and implementation of reasonable evaluation methods. The focus group exposed repeated application and a shared understanding between stakeholders as facilitators for working with logic models. In conclusion, at the science-practice interface, logic models could enhance the integrative understanding and the further development of evidence-based workplace health promotion.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
逻辑模型在工作场所健康促进中的应用经验——焦点小组讨论
收集关于复杂的工作场所健康促进干预措施的证据面临方法上的挑战。因此,建议将逻辑模型作为一种变革理论加以应用,以支持结果和过程评估。本研究探讨了在工作场所健康促进的应用型干预研究中应用逻辑模型的挑战和机遇。一个由科学家和工作场所健康促进从业者组成的焦点小组(n=6)使用半结构化访谈指南进行。使用结构化内容分析方法对记录的定性数据进行转录和分析。根据焦点小组的说法,逻辑模型为规划和评估复杂的工作场所健康促进干预措施提供了一些机会。逻辑模型支持科学与实践之间的沟通,并有利于工作场所健康促进干预措施的提供者。使用逻辑模型的主要挑战是处理复杂且不断发展的干预措施,以及合理评估方法的推导和实施。焦点小组展示了利益相关者作为逻辑模型工作促进者的反复应用和共同理解。总之,在科学与实践的界面上,逻辑模型可以增强对循证工作场所健康促进的综合理解和进一步发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory evaluation. How to incorporate an anticipatory technique into a theory-driven evaluation process. Results of application in a case study. What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review A program evaluation of the new choices workforce development program: An appreciative inquiry approach The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts A theoretical framework to companies value creation through a systematic review of intangibles’ management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1