↓ Skip to main content

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing complex workplace dietary interventions: process evaluation results of a cluster controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Barriers to and facilitators of implementing complex workplace dietary interventions: process evaluation results of a cluster controlled trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1413-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Fitzgerald, Fiona Geaney, Clare Kelly, Sheena McHugh, Ivan J. Perry

Abstract

Ambiguity exists regarding the effectiveness of workplace dietary interventions. Rigorous process evaluation is vital to understand this uncertainty. This study was conducted as part of the Food Choice at Work trial which assessed the comparative effectiveness of a workplace environmental dietary modification intervention and an educational intervention both alone and in combination versus a control workplace. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of employees' dietary intakes, nutrition knowledge and health status in four large manufacturing workplaces. The study aimed to examine barriers to and facilitators of implementing complex workplace interventions, from the perspectives of key workplace stakeholders and researchers involved in implementation. A detailed process evaluation monitored and evaluated intervention implementation. Interviews were conducted at baseline (27 interviews) and at 7-9 month follow-up (27 interviews) with a purposive sample of workplace stakeholders (managers and participating employees). Topic guides explored factors which facilitated or impeded implementation. Researchers involved in recruitment and data collection participated in focus groups at baseline and at 7-9 month follow-up to explore their perceptions of intervention implementation. Data were imported into NVivo software and analysed using a thematic framework approach. Four major themes emerged; perceived benefits of participation, negotiation and flexibility of the implementation team, viability and intensity of interventions and workplace structures and cultures. The latter three themes either positively or negatively affected implementation, depending on context. The implementation team included managers involved in coordinating and delivering the interventions and the researchers who collected data and delivered intervention elements. Stakeholders' perceptions of the benefits of participating, which facilitated implementation, included managers' desire to improve company image and employees seeking health improvements. Other facilitators included stakeholder buy-in, organisational support and stakeholder cohesiveness with regards to the level of support provided to the intervention. Anticipation of employee resistance towards menu changes, workplace restructuring and target-driven workplace cultures impeded intervention implementation. Contextual factors such as workplace structures and cultures need to be considered in the implementation of future workplace dietary interventions. Negotiation and flexibility of key workplace stakeholders plays an integral role in overcoming the barriers of workplace cultures, structures and resistance to change. Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN35108237 . Date of registration: 02/07/2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 23 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Psychology 14 11%
Social Sciences 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 28 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,957,379
of 18,966,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#2,255
of 6,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,165
of 272,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,966,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.