Participatory Approaches in the Context of Research Into Workplace Health Promotion to Improve Physical Activity Levels and Reduce Sedentary Behavior Among Office-Based Workers: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Participatory research (PR) involves engaging in cocreation with end users and relevant stakeholders throughout the research process, aiming to distribute power equitably between the end users and research team. Engagement and adherence in previous workplace health promotion (WHP) studies have been shown to be lacking. By implementing a PR approach, the insights of end users and stakeholders are sought in the co-design of feasible and acceptable intervention strategies, thereby increasing the relevance of the research. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to explore, identify, and map PR techniques and their impact when used in office-based WHP interventions designed to improve physical activity (PA) or reduce sedentary behavior (SB). METHODS: The reporting of this scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). A systematic literature search of 5 electronic databases-Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey-was conducted, searching from January 1, 1995, to February 8, 2023. In total, 2 independent reviewers first screened the retrieved articles by title and abstract, and then assessed the full texts based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The search strategy and eligibility criteria were developed and guided by an a priori population (office-based working adults), intervention (a PA WHP intervention that took a PR approach), comparison (no comparison required), and outcome (PA or SB) framework. Data were charted and discussed via a narrative synthesis, and a thematic analysis was conducted. The included studies were evaluated regarding the degree of end user engagement throughout the research process and power shared by the researchers, using Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation. RESULTS: The search retrieved 376 records, of which 8 (2.1%) met the inclusion criteria. Four key strategies were identified: (1) end user focus groups, (2) management involvement, (3) researcher facilitators, and (4) workplace champions. The degree of engagement and power shared was relatively low, with 25% (2/8) of the studies determined to be nonparticipation studies, 25% (2/8) determined to be tokenistic, and 50% (4/8) determined to provide citizen power. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a foundation of evidence on the current practices when taking a PR approach, highlighting that previous office-based PA WHP studies have been largely tokenistic or nonparticipative, and identified that the end user is only engaged with in the conception and implementation of the WHP studies. However, a positive improvement in PA and reduction in SB were observed in the included studies, which were largely attributed to implementing a PR approach and including the end user in the design of the WHP intervention. Future studies should aim to collaborate with workplaces, building capacity and empowering the workforce by providing citizen control and letting the end users "own" the research for a sustainable WHP intervention. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054402.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,151 | 0,254 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,025 | 0,029 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».