801 Implementation process evaluation of a preventive intervention in a hospital: assessment of the adequacy between workers’ needs and intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The Together towards health program was implemented in a large hospital in Québec, Canada to target psychosocial work factors. An organisational psychologist developed activities to improve team management in several units, based on a participatory implementation process. The aim of this study was to assess the adequacy between workers’ needs and activities that were effectively implemented. Methods We used a longitudinal design with a mixed-method approach. Data were collected in three medical analysis laboratories (n=25, 25, 35) within the hospital. Quantitative data were collected with a questionnaire among all active workers before the intervention implementation. Psychosocial work factors (validated demand-control-support and effort-reward imbalance models), psychological distress (validated Kessler-6), sleep quality (Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index) were measured. Three top priorities for intervention were ranked by workers. Qualitative data through observation (logbooks) during all steps of intervention (8–24 months) were collected in the three units and documented the elaboration of action plan and the nature of activities effectively implemented. Results Two different sources of data for workers needs assessment were compared: the diagnosis of psychosocial work factors resulting from quantitative data analysis and workers’ ranking of their 3 top priorities. Results showed a good adequacy between diagnosis and workers’ ranking in the three units. The correspondence between the action plan (elaborated by workers, managers and the psychologist) and the identified needs was partial in two units and low in one unit. The types of implemented activities covered only a part of identified needs in the three units. Discussion Results show that the discrepancy between needs, action plan and activities may be important. In the three units, implemented activities addressed social support, reward and justice at work, but did not address work organisation issues (psychological demands, decision latitude) although prevalence of exposure was high for these risk factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".