↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of the Swedish Guideline for Prevention of Mental ill-health at the Workplace: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial, using multifaceted implementation strategies in…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Implementation of the Swedish Guideline for Prevention of Mental ill-health at the Workplace: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial, using multifaceted implementation strategies in schools
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12889-019-7976-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lydia Kwak, Caroline Lornudd, Christina Björklund, Gunnar Bergström, Lotta Nybergh, Liselotte Schäfer Elinder, Kjerstin Stigmar, Charlotte Wåhlin, Irene Jensen

Abstract

Given today's high prevalence of common mental disorders and related sick leave among teachers, an urgent need exists for a more systematic approach to the management of social and organizational risk factors within schools. In 2015, we launched the first Swedish occupational health guideline to support a structured prevention of these risks at the workplace. The existence of guidelines does however not guarantee their usage, as studies show that guidelines are often underused. Knowledge is therefore needed on effective implementation strategies that can facilitate the translation of guidelines into practice. The primary aim of the randomized waiting list-controlled trial described in this study protocol is to compare the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy versus a single implementation strategy for implementing the Guideline for the prevention of mental ill-health at the workplace within schools. The effectiveness will be compared regarding the extent to which the recommendations are implemented (implementation effectiveness) and with regard to social and organisational risk factors for mental ill-health, absenteeism and presenteeism (intervention effectiveness). The trial is conducted among primary schools of two municipalities in Sweden. The single implementation strategy is an educational strategy (an educational meeting). The multifaceted strategy consists of the educational meeting, an implementation team and a series of workshops. The outcome measure of implementation effectiveness is guideline adherence. The primary outcome of intervention effectiveness is exhaustion. Secondary outcomes include demands at work, work organization and job contents, interpersonal relations and leadership, presenteeism, work performance, recovery, work-life balance, work-engagement, self-reported stress, self-perceived health, sickness absence and psychosocial safety climate. Process outcomes as well as barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation process are assessed. Data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months by mixed methods (i.e. survey, focus-group interviews, observation). The study described in this protocol will provide valuable knowledge on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for implementing a guideline for the prevention of common mental disorders within schools. We hypothesize that successful implementation will result in reductions in school personnel's perceived social and organizational risk factors, mental ill-health and sick-leave. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03322839 (trial registration: 09/19/2017).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 26 15%
Unknown 63 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 14%
Psychology 20 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 9%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 76 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2019.
All research outputs
#13,391,500
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,364
of 15,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,642
of 460,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#210
of 338 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 460,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 338 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.