annemariefridrich: effects of a multilevel stress-management intervention at the work place

7/31/2019 AnnemarieFridrich: Effects of a multilevel stress-management intervention at the work place

1/22

Division Public And Organizational Health, ISPM UZH / ZOA ETH

Annemarie Fridrich, Division Public And Organizational Health, Zurich

Effects of a multilevel stress-managementintervention at the work place:

What process variables account for the

interventions success?

Small Group Meeting

Nottingham Trent University, UK24-25 May 2012


2/22


Contents

SWiNG project Process measurements Outcome measurements Summary Further research questions

SGM Nottingham, 24-25 May 2012Annemarie Fridrich


3/22


SWiNG project key figures

SWiNG = Stressmanagement, Effectiveness and Benefit ofWorksite Health Promotion

Implementation: 2008 2011 Participants

8 medium- and large scale companieswith differentsizes(between 300 and 1200 employees)

A total of over 5000 employees Different sectors (production, services, administration, hospital)

Strong evaluation framework (OHD research model, JD-R-model)



4/22


SWiNG project intervention


Ov

erallimpact

Launch,

analysis,

planning

Workshops,

courses

Measures, objects,

initiatives, ideas,

discussions ...

S-Tool, SWiNG group,

project management and

communication

Stress training, management

courses, health circles, team

reflection sessions, workshops,

presentations !


5/22


SWiNG project evaluation tools

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation instruments: S-Tool: comprehensive questionnaire covering a variety of

work- and health related topics (www.s-tool.ch)

Health cost survey Module evaluation questionnaire Structured Interviews Group discussion Phone interviews



6/22


SWiNG project course


Key company figures, interviews with key persons, S-TOOL survey, management surveySystematic observation of activities

Key company figures, interviews with key persons, S-TOOL survey, management surveySystematic observation of activities

Reflecting on results as well as devising measures in theteam

Leadership workshop relating to team resultsLeadership training

Stress management course for employees

Leadership workshop relating to team resultsLeadership training in Change ManagementStress management for employees, incl. mindness

2009

2010

2011

Key company figures, S-TOOL survey

T0 (N = 3499)

T1 (N = 3159)

T2 (N = 2467)

Lon

gitudinals

ample

N

=1286


7/22


Process measurements


!


8/22


Process measurements


Outcome measures

Shared

Participation(Unit Reach)

Appraisal of

Participation(Coherence,

Efficacy, Fit)

Individual

Participation(Individual Reach)

INDIVIDUALReadiness for Change, Self-Efficacy

ORGANISATIONReadiness for Change, Culture


9/22


Individual participation

How many courses has each participant taken?

stressmanagement workshop; management courses;health circles; team reflection sessions; otherworkshops; presentations

matching: S-Tool data + module participation lists Scale: 0 to 6; M = 1.46 (s = 1.01)

Did you voluntarily participate in the workshop?

(3-point item: Yes / More or less / No)SGM Nottingham, 24-25 May 2012Annemarie Fridrich

SPAP

IP


10/22


Appraisal of participation

Coherence of the intervention Efficacy of the intervention Fit with the organization


Measured with the module evaluation questionnaire at the endof the refresher (stressmanagement/management courses)

SP

IP

AP


11/22


Appraisal of participation coherence

3 items (7-point scale with 1 = no, not at all and7 = yes, very much)

(1)Was the workshop comprehensible for you?(2)Were the demands of the workshop manageable for

you?

(3)Was the workshop meaningful and beneficial for you?


SP

IP

AP


12/22


Appraisal of participation efficacy

2 items (7-point scale with 1 = no, not at all to 7 =yes, very much)

(1)Do you think the workshop will have a positive impact onyourself?

(2)Do you think the workshop will have a positive impact onyour organisation?


SP

IP

AP


13/22


Appraisal of participation fit

2 items (7-point scale with 1 = no, not at all to 7 =yes, very much)

(1)Do you think your organization will invest in healthpromotion for the long term?

(2)Do you think health promotion is in line with yourorganizational culture?


SP

IP

AP


14/22


15/22


Shared participation


Reach (sum of all courses)

The more thebetter?

Or is there anoptimalparticipation ratefor a unit?

Should onlyparticular personsparticipate in thecourses?

AP

IP

SP


16/22


Shared Participation


8 enterprises, total of 59 units at average 7,4 units per enterprise difficulties:

great differences in unit size (11 599 employees) unit sizes and structures varied over time

-> relative unit participation rate

-> team level


17/22


Outcome measurements

Measurements at t0 and t2 Relative change of Resources/Demands-Ratio

Measurements only at t2: Change assessment Overall impact assessment



18/22



Overall impact assessment (5 items, 7-point scale)

In the course of the SWiNG project, various activities topromote health have taken place in your company.

(1)Have these activities made a positive impact on thecompany?

(2)Have these activities made a positive impact on youyourself?

(3)Has SWiNG encouraged to talk more often about stressin your work environment than before?

(4)Cronbachs alpha= .88, N = 2083



19/22



Change assessment (8 items, 7-point scale)

Think about your employment situation about 1-2 yearsago. Since then, has/have

(1)your work got harder?(2)the behaviour of your superiors changed?(3)the atmosphere at work changed?(4)your physical health changed?(5)

Cronbachs alpha = .84, N = 2194



20/22


Summary


t0 t1 t2

Demands andResources (t1) R/D-Ratio (t0) Demands and

Resources (t2) R/D-Ratio (t2) Change of R/D-

Ratio

Overall impactassessment

Appraisal Participation

Sharedparticipation

CoherenceEfficacy

Fit

?


21/22


22/22



Thank you verymuch for your

attention!

[email protected]

annemariefridrich: effects of a multilevel stress-management intervention at the work place

Documents