Advertisement

Interventions Developed with the Intervention Mapping Protocol in Work Disability Prevention: A Systematic Review of the Literature

  • J. B. Fassier
  • P. Sarnin
  • S. Rouat
  • J. Péron
  • G. Kok
  • L. Letrilliart
  • M. Lamort-Bouché
Review

Abstract

Purposes Intervention mapping (IM) is a protocol for developing effective behavior change interventions. It has been used for 10 years to develop work disability prevention (WDP) interventions, but it is not known to what extent and with what success. The main objective of this study was to review the effectiveness of these interventions. Secondary objectives were to review their fidelity to the IM protocol, their theoretical frameworks and their content. Methods A search strategy was conducted in MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Pascal, Francis, and BDSP. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by two reviewers blinded to each other. Results Eight WDP interventions were identified aimed at return to work (RTW; n = 6) and self-management at work (n = 2). RTW interventions targeted workers with stress-related mental disorders (n = 1), low back pain (n = 1), musculoskeletal disorders (n = 1), cancer (n = 2) and gynecological surgery (n = 1). The fidelity to the IM protocol was weaker for the participatory planning group. Matrices of change, change methods, and applications were systematically reported. The main theoretical frameworks used were the attitude-social influence-self efficacy model (n = 4) and the theory of planned behavior (n = 2). Half of the interventions included a workplace component (n = 4). Two interventions were reported as effective, and one partially effective. Conclusion The IM protocol is used in WDP since 2007. The participative dimension appears underused. Few theoretical frameworks were used. Implications are to better consider the stakeholders involvement, and mobilize theoretical frameworks with greater attempts to intervene on the work environment.

Keywords

Intervention mapping Return to work Models Theoretical Program evaluation Health program planning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This systematic review was conducted in the frame of the FASTRACS project (@FASTRACS_projet ; http://www.fastracs.com) funded by a grant from the regional cancer network (Cancéropole Auvergne Rhône-Alpes, CLARA) and a grant from the National Cancer Institute (Institut National du Cancer, InCA). The authors are grateful to M. Philip Robinson (Hospices civils de Lyon, Direction de la Recherche Clinique et de l’Innovation) for his help in the language revision.

Supplementary material

10926_2018_9776_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (260 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 259 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Loisel P, Buchbinder R, Hazard R, Keller R, Scheel I, van Tulder M, et al. Prevention of work disability due to musculoskeletal disorders: the challenge of implementing evidence. J Occup Rehabil. 2005;15(4):507–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Mitchie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337(7676):979–83.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fassier JB, Durand MJ, Loisel P. 2nd place PREMUS best paper competition: implementing return-to-work interventions for workers with low-back pain: a conceptual framework to identify barriers and facilitators. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(2):99–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen H-T. Logic models and the action model/change model schema (program theory). Practical program evaluation: theory-driven evaluation and the integrated evaluation perspective. Mercer University: Sage; 2015. pp. 58–94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rossi PH. Expressing and assessing program theory. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 7th ed.; 2004. pp. 133–68.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patton MQ. Implementation evaluation: what happened in the program? In: Patton MQ, editor. Utilisation-focused evaluation: the new century text. 3rd ed.; 1996. pp. 195–214.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rossi PH. Assessing and monitoring program process. Evaluation: a systematic approach. 7th ed.; 2004. pp. 168–201.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior and health education: theory, research and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bartholomew K, Parcel G, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(5):545–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bartholomew K, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernandez M. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. 3rd ed.: Sage; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 510 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Durand MJ, Vézina N, Loisel P, Baril R, Richard MC, Diallo B. Workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disabilities: a descriptive review of content. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17(1):123–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ammendolia C, Cassidy D, Steensta I, Soklaridis S, Boyle E, Eng S, et al. Designing a workplace return-to-work program for occupational low back pain: an intervention mapping approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desiron HA, Crutzen R, Godderis L, Van Hoof E, de Rijk A. Bridging health care and the workplace: formulation of a return-to-work intervention for breast cancer patients using an intervention mapping approach. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(3):350–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Detaille SI, van der Gulden JW, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, van Dijk FJ, Detaille SI, et al. Using intervention mapping (IM) to develop a self-management programme for employees with a chronic disease in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:353.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hutting N, Detaille SI, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. Development of a self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, and/or shoulder: an intervention mapping approach. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015;8:307–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munir F, Kalawsky K, Wallis DJ, Donaldson-Feilder E. Using intervention mapping to develop a work-related guidance tool for those affected by cancer. Bmc Public Health. 2013;13:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Oostrom SH, Anema JR, Terluin B, Venema A, de Vet HC, van Mechelen W. Development of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with stress-related mental disorders: intervention mapping as a useful tool. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vermeulen SJ, Anema JR, Schellart AJ, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJ. Intervention mapping for development of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vonk Noordegraaf A, Huirne JA, Pittens CA, van Mechelen W, Broerse JE, Brolmann HA, et al. eHealth program to empower patients in returning to normal activities and work after gynecological surgery: intervention mapping as a useful method for development. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5):e124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desiron HA, Donceel P, de Rijk A, Van Hoof E. A conceptual-practice model for occupational therapy to facilitate return to work in breast cancer patients. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(4):516–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Desiron HA, Donceel P, Godderis L, Van Hoof E, de Rijk A. What is the value of occupational therapy in return to work for breast cancer patients? A qualitative inquiry among experts. Eur J Cancer Care. 2015;24(2):267–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutting N, Engels JA, Staal JB, Heerkens YF, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. Development of a self-management intervention for employees with complaints of the arm, neck and/or shoulder (CANS): a focus group study with experts. J Occup Med Toxicol. 2015;10:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hutting N, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. Experiences of employees with arm, neck or shoulder complaints: a focus group study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:141.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Munir F, Yarker J, Hicks B, Donaldson-Feilder E. Returning employees back to work: developing a measure for Supervisors to Support Return to Work (SSRW). J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(2):196–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pittens CA, Vonk Noordegraaf A, van Veen SC, Anema JR, Huirne JA, Broerse JE. The involvement of gynaecological patients in the development of a clinical guideline for resumption of (work) activities in the Netherlands. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1397–412.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vonk Noordegraaf A, Anema JR, Louwerse MD, Heymans MW, van Mechelen W, Brolmann HA, et al. Prediction of time to return to work after gynaecological surgery: a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. BJOG. 2014;121(4):487–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hutting N, Detaille SI, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. Experiences of participants in a self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS): a mixed methods study. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;27(1):35–48.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Beurden KM, Vermeulen SJ, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. A participatory return-to-work program for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: a process evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):127–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Oostrom SH, van Mechelen W, Terluin B, de Vet HC, Anema JR. A participatory workplace intervention for employees with distress and lost time: a feasibility evaluation within a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(2):212–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Detaille SI, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, van der Gulden JW, van Dijk FJ. Effect evaluation of a self-management program for dutch workers with a chronic somatic disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2013;23(2):189–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hutting N, Staal JB, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, Detaille SI, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. Effect evaluation of a self-management programme for employees with complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder: a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2015;72(12):852–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hutting N, Staal JB, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW. A self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, or shoulder (CANS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:258.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Oostrom SH, van Mechelen W, Terluin B, de Vet HC, Knol DL, Anema JR. A workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress: results of a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(9):596–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vermeulen SJ, Anema JR, Schellart AJ, Knol DL, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJ. A participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Occup Rehabil. 2011;21(3):313–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vonk Noordegraaf A, Anema JR, van Mechelen W, Knol DL, van Baal WM, van Kesteren PJ, et al. A personalised eHealth programme reduces the duration until return to work after gynaecological surgery: results of a multicentre randomised trial. BJOG. 2014;121(9):1127–35 (discussion 36).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Oostrom SH, Heymans MW, de Vet HC, van Tulder MW, van Mechelen W, Anema JR. Economic evaluation of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress. Occup Environ Med. 2010;67(9):603–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vermeulen SJ, Anema JR, Schellart AJ, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJ. Cost-effectiveness of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders: design of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vermeulen SJ, Heymans MW, Anema JR, Schellart AJ, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJ. Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. Scand J Work Environ health. 2013;39(1):46–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wiatrek D. Utilizing intervention mapping in the development of an evidence-based psychosocial program for breast cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;22(suppl 2):25.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pluye P, Potvin L, Denis J-L, Pelletier J, Mannoni C. Program sustainability begins with the first events. Eval Program Plann. 2005;28(2):123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    De Rijk A. Work disability theories: a taxonomy for researchers. In: Loisel P, editor. Handbook of work disability: prevention and management. 1st ed.: New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 475–99.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Peters G, de Bruin M, Crutzen R. Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler: towards a protocol for accumulating evidence regarding the active content of health behaviour change interventions. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(1):1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kok G, Gottlieb N, Peters G, Mullen P, Parcel G, Ruiter R. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an intervention mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(3):297–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bilodeau K, Tremblay D, Durand MJ. Exploration of return-to-work interventions for breast cancer patients: a scoping review. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(6):1993–2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lorig K, Holman H, Sobel D, Laurent D, González V, Minor M. Living a healthy life with chronic conditions. Bull Publishing Company; 2012.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Corbiere M, Negrini A, Durand MJ, St-Arnaud L, Briand C, Fassier JB, et al. Development of the return-to-work obstacles and self-efficacy scale (ROSES) and validation with workers suffering from a common mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2017;27(3):329–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    MacEachen E, Kosny A, Ferrier S, Chambers L. The “Toxic Dose” of system problems: why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):349–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Vilsteren M, van Oostrom SH, de Vet HC, Franche RL, Boot CR, Anema JR. Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:Cd006955.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hawe P, Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health. 2009;100(1):8–14.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Marmot M, Allen J, Bell R, Bloomer E, Goldblatt P. WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. Lancet. 2012;380(9846):1011–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Baril R, Berthelette D, Massicotte P. Early return to work of injured workers: multidimensional patterns of individual and organizational factors. Saf Sci. 2003;41(4):277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tjulin A, MacEachen E, Stiwne EE, Ekberg K. The social interaction of return to work explored from co-workers experiences. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(21–22):1979–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Grataloup M, Massardier-Pilonchery A, Bergeret A, Fassier JB. Job restrictions for healthcare workers with musculoskeletal disorders: consequences from the superior’s viewpoint. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(3):245–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fassier JB, Durand MJ, Caillard JF, Roquelaure Y, Loisel P. Results of a feasibility study: barriers and facilitators in implementing the Sherbrooke model in France. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015;41(3):223–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ekberg K, Pransky GS, Besen E, Fassier JB, Feuerstein M, Munir F, et al. New business structures creating organizational opportunities and challenges for work disability prevention. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):480–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ståhl C, Svensson T, Petersson G, Ekberg K. A matter of trust? A study of coordination of Swedish stakeholders in return-to-work. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(3):299–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tjulin A, Edvardsson Stiwne E, Ekberg K. Experience of the implementation of a multi-stakeholder return-to-work programme. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(4):409–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Main CJ, Nicholas MK, Shaw WS, Tetrick LE, Ehrhart MG, Pransky G. Implementation science and employer disability practices: embedding implementation factors in research designs. J Occup Rehabil. 2016;26(4):448–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lamort-Bouche M, Sarnin P, Kok G, Rouat S, Peron J, Letrilliart L, et al. Interventions developed with the Intervention mapping protocol in the field of cancer: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2017;27(4):1138–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Fernandez ME, Gonzales A, Tortolero-Luna G, Partida S, Bartholomew LK. Using intervention mapping to develop a breast and cervical cancer screening program for Hispanic farmworkers: Cultivando La Salud. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(4):394–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:725.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pawson R. The science of evaluation: a realist manifesto. London: Sage; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pawson R, Tilley A. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vonk Noordegraaf A, Huirne JA, Brolmann HA, Emanuel MH, van Kesteren PJ, Kleiverda G, et al. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary care program on recovery and return to work of patients after gynaecological surgery; design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bouwsma EV, Anema JR, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Knol DL, Bosmans JE, Schraffordt Koops SE, et al. The cost effectiveness of a tailored, web-based care program to enhance postoperative recovery in gynecologic patients in comparison with usual care: protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014;3(2):e30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bouwsma EV, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Szlavik Z, Brolmann HA, Emanuel MH, Lips JP, et al. Process evaluation of a multidisciplinary care program for patients undergoing gynaecological surgery. J Occup Rehabil. 2014;24(3):425–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Detaille SI, van der Gulden JW, Engels JA, Heerkens YF, van Dijk FJ. Using intervention mapping (IM) to develop a self-management programme for employees with a chronic disease in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:353.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Unité mixte de recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement, UMRESTTE UMR T 9405LyonFrance
  2. 2.Hospices civils de Lyon, service de médecine et santé au travailLyonFrance
  3. 3.Univ Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon 2, GREPS - EA 4163 (Groupe de recherche en psychologie sociale)LyonFrance
  4. 4.Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive LBBE – UMR 5558LyonFrance
  5. 5.Service d’oncologie médicale. Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL)Pierre-BéniteFrance
  6. 6.Department of Work and Social PsychologyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Health Services and Performance Research, HESPER Université Lyon 2LyonFrance
  8. 8.Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Collège Universitaire de médecine généraleLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations