Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Dec 22;12(12):e062320.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062320.

Responsive evaluation: an innovative evaluation methodology for workplace health promotion interventions

Affiliations
Review

Responsive evaluation: an innovative evaluation methodology for workplace health promotion interventions

Hanneke van Heijster et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Background: Workplace health promotion (WHP) interventions have limited effects on the health of employees with low socioeconomic position (SEP). This paper argues that this limited effectiveness can be partly explained by the methodology applied to evaluate the intervention, often a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Frequently, the desired outcomes of traditional evaluations may not match employees'-and in particular employees with low SEP-needs and lifeworld. Furthermore, traditional evaluation methodologies do not function well in work settings characterised by change resulting from internal and external developments. Objective: In this communication, responsive evaluation is proposed as an alternative approach to evaluating WHP interventions. Responsive evaluation's potential added value for WHP interventions for employees with low SEP in particular is described, as well as how the methodology differs from RCTs. The paper also elaborates on the different scientific philosophies underpinning the two methodologies as this allows researchers to judge the suitability and quality of responsive evaluation in light of the corresponding criteria for good science.

Keywords: health policy; organisational development; public health; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

    1. Robroek SJW, Oude Hengel KM, van der Beek AJ, et al. . Socio-economic inequalities in the effectiveness of workplace health promotion programmes on body mass index: an individual participant data meta-analysis. Obes Rev 2020;21:e13101. 10.1111/obr.13101 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coenen P, Robroek SJW, van der Beek AJ, et al. . Socioeconomic inequalities in effectiveness of and compliance to workplace health promotion programs: an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020;17:112. 10.1186/s12966-020-01002-w - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. van Heijster H, Boot CRL, Robroek SJW, et al. . The effectiveness of workplace health promotion programs on self-perceived health of employees with a low socioeconomic position: an individual participant data meta-analysis. SSM Popul Health 2021;13:100743. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100743 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cairns J-M, Bambra C, Hillier-Brown FC, et al. . Weighing up the evidence: a systematic review of the effectiveness of workplace interventions to tackle socio-economic inequalities in obesity. J Public Health 2015;37:659–70. 10.1093/pubmed/fdu077 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rongen A, Robroek SJW, van Lenthe FJ, et al. . Workplace health promotion: a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 2013;44:406–15. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.12.007 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources