Implementing the Swedish Guideline for the Prevention of Common Mental Disorders at the Workplace in Schools: Study Protocol of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Using Multifaceted Implementation Strategies
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 732
- 试验地点
- 2
- 主要终点
- Exhaustion (intervention effectiveness)
研究概览
简要总结
Given today's high prevalence of common mental disorders and related sick leave among teachers an urgent need exists for a more sustainable working life for this professional group. One way of doing this is by improving schools' social and organizational risk management. Recent reports have shown that many schools in Sweden however lack a structured approach to the management of social and organizational risks. In 2015, we launched the first Swedish occupational health guideline to support a structured prevention of social and organizational risks at the workplace with the aim of preventing common mental disorders. The long-term goal of this study is to support the implementation of this guideline within schools in order to improve social and organizational risk management and in doing so reduce risk factors for mental ill-health and related sick days. The objective of the study is to fill the current research-to-practice gap by conducting a cluster-randomized controlled trial that compares the effectiveness of two implementation strategies for implementing the guideline in schools. The strategies that will be compared are training (ARM 1) versus training in combination with implementation teams and workshops (ARM 2). Our hypothesis for the study is that schools that receive support in implementing the guideline through combined strategies are more responsive to working in a structured and systematic manner with the management of social and organizational risks than schools that only receive training. The trial will be conducted in 20 primary schools in two municipalities in Sweden. All schools have agreed to participate. The primary outcomes are adherence to the guideline (implementation effectiveness) and self-reported exhaustion among schools personnel (intervention effectiveness); the secondary outcomes are risk factors for mental ill-health and absenteeism. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months by mixed methods (i.e. survey, focus-group interviews, observation, and register-data).
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Prevention
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •all individuals who are employed by the participating schools
排除标准
- •individuals employed by the participating municipalities and not by the participating schools, for example cleaning personal. Individuals on sick-leave
结局指标
主要结局
Exhaustion (intervention effectiveness)
时间窗: At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline
Change from baseline in personnel's self-reported exhaustion during 6, 12 and 24 months follow. We hypothesize that adherence to the recommendations of the guideline will affect school personnel's self-reported exhaustion assessed with the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (response format 1-4).
Guideline adherence (implementation effectiveness)
时间窗: At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline
Change from baseline in adherence to the recommendations of the guideline during 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up period. We will use a questionnaire directed at the school management and a questionnaire directed at the school personnel. The questionnaires contain statements related to the recommendations in the guideline, such as "at our school we have clear and practical policies for preventing mental ill-health among our employees".
次要结局
- Commitment to the workplace(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Social support superior(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Recovery(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Self-reported sickness absenteeism(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Psychosocial safety climate(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Job demands(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Possibilities for development(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Work engagement(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Work performance impairment due to problems in the work environment(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Recognition (reward)(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Social support colleagues(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Influence at work(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Self-reported stress(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Work-family conflict(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Work performance impairment due to health problems(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Self-perceived health(At baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline)
- Registered sickness absenteeism(12 months prior to baseline, and during 24 months after baseline)
- Self-reported stress (SMS)(Measured every 4th week over 12 months from baseline)
- Process evaluation data(Assessed during the 24 month study period.)
- Barriers(Assessed during the 24 month study period)
- Facilitators(Assessed during the 24 month study period)
研究者
Lydia Kwak
Associate professor
Karolinska Institutet