Cargas sociales

Ten studies contained people’s ‘views’ of their experience of workplace health promotion. Nine of these were obtained through qualitative data collection and analysis methods (Bardus et al. 2014; Dolan et al. 2005; Edmunds et al. 2013; Gibson 2014; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013; Procter et al. 2014; Robinson et al. 2014; White et al. 2008). One study was a quantitative survey of people’s reasons for not exercising and was rated using quantitative quality assessment tools (Blake et al. 2013).

Judgements about study quality were based on the reliability, relevance and usefulness of the findings contained in each study. Reviewers judged the reliability of individual studies by considering the extent to which they had reduced systematic bias in their methods of sampling, data collection and data analysis, and the extent to which the findings of the study were grounded in and supported by the data. When judging the usefulness of the study findings, reviewers

examined the extent to which the study had privileged the perspectives and experiences of people and the richness and complexity of descriptions and analyses. The overall relevance of the study findings was considered in relation to answering the review question, not the aims and objectives of each individual study.

Overall, study quality varied across all three dimensions (see Table 4.1). Of the three studies judged to be of high reliability, two were also judged to be of high relevance and usefulness (Bardus et al. 2014; Procter et al. 2014) and one was judged to be of medium relevance and high usefulness (Edmunds et al. 2013). Six studies were judged to have medium reliability; two of these provided highly relevant and useful findings (Lomas and McCluskey 2005; White et al. 2008), three medium relevant and useful findings (Blake 2013; Mellor and Webster 2013; Robinson et al. 2014) and one study was judged as highly relevant with medium useful findings (Dolan et al. 2005). Only one study was judged to be of low reliability but contributed findings judged to be of medium relevance and usefulness (Gibson 2014).

Reliability of qualitative studies

Sampling

Eight of the ten studies were judged to have taken several steps (Dolan et al. 2005; Edmunds et al. 2013; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013; Procter et al. 2014; White et al. 2008) or made a thorough attempt (Bardus et al. 2014, Robinson et al. 2014) to increase rigour in their sampling. Studies attempted to represent a diverse sample of people (or their target group, e.g. men) within one or across more than workplace health promotion site. Only one study, of low reliability, was judged as making ‘few steps’, providing a lack of detail in how they recruited a smaller sample from a larger pool of volunteers (Gibson 2014). The survey by Blake et al. (2013) was judged as using appropriate methods of probability sampling, by inviting all employees to complete a questionnaire before and five years after participating in a workplace health intervention.

Data collection

All studies provided examples of rigour in their methods of data collection. Four studies were judged to have made a thorough attempt (Bardus et al. 2014; Edmunds et al. 2013; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Procter et al. 2014) and five to have taken several steps (Dolan et al. 2005, Gibson, 2014, Mellor and Webster 2013, Robinson et al. 2014, White et al. 2008). Studies judged as thorough provided additional descriptions of their interview processes, particularly ethical

procedures around facilitating consent, ensuring that participants felt comfortable and attempting to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Some studies broadened the range of data they collected by using more than one method, such as conducting both in-depth interviews and focus groups (Bardus et al. 2014; Dolan et al. 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013) or by taking field notes (White et

Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health 36 al. 2008). Blake et al. (2013) ensured rigour in their use of survey methodology by ensuring that it reached a response rate of greater than 60%.

Data analysis

The majority of studies took steps to increase analytical rigour (N=7). The four studies judged to have made a thorough attempt (Bardus et al. 2014; Dolan et al. 2005; Edmunds et al. 2013; Procter et al. 2014) and the two studies judged as taking several steps (Mellor and Webster 2013; Robinson et al. 2014) described how they conducted a thematic, grounded theory or framework analysis. They provided a detailed description of their methods and how this supported the generation of themes presented in the findings. Studies judged to have made a thorough attempt also described how they increased validity and reliability in the analysis, such as comparing separate data sources, or resolving differences in their analysis through discussion with members of the research team. There were no concerns about the statistical analysis of the survey data undertaken by Blake et al. (2014). Methods of analysis were minimally reported in two studies (Lomas and McCluskey 2005, White et al. 2008) and not at all in one study (Gibson 2014).

Supported/grounded in the data

Studies clearly reported participants’ views, in the form of quotes, separately from the authors’ narrative descriptions of data to show how they arrived at their findings. Nine of ten studies were judged to have been at least fairly well grounded (Bardus et al. 2014; Edmunds et al. 2013; Procter et al. 2014; White et al. 2008) if not well grounded (Dolan et al. 2005; Gibson 2014; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013; Robinson et al. 2014) in the data.

Usefulness of qualitative studies

Breadth and depth

Only two studies provided both breadth and depth in their findings (Bardus et al. 2014, Edmunds et al. 2013). The remaining six studies presented findings on a range of barriers and facilitators relevant to engaging in workplace health promotion programmes but did not report them in depth (Dolan et al. 2005; Gibson 2014; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013; Procter et al. 2014; White et al. 2008). One study was judged as limited in both breadth and depth (Robinson et al. 2014); and Blake et al. (2013), as a quantitative survey, was not assessed on this criterion.

Perspectives

The final quality criteria assessed the extent to which the study privileged the perspectives and experiences of people participating in workplace health programmes. Studies were judged to be of high quality, with people’s perspectives considered as being privileged either ‘a lot’ (Bardus et al. 2014; Edmunds et al. 2013; Gibson 2014; Lomas and McCluskey 2005; Procter et al. 2014; White et al. 2008) or at least ‘somewhat’ (Dolan et al. 2005; Mellor and Webster 2013; Robinson et al. 2014). No studies were judged as giving little or no weight to people’s perspectives; and the study by Blake et al. (2013) was not assessed according to this criteria.

Table 4.1: Reliability, relevance and usefulness of findings

Reliability of findings Relevance of findings Usefulness of findings

Author High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low

Bardus et al. (2014)    Blake et al. (2013)    Dolan et al. (2005)    Edmunds et al. (2013)   

Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health 37

Reliability of findings Relevance of findings Usefulness of findings

Author High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low

Gibson (2014)    Lomas and McCluskey (2005)    Mellor and Webster (2013)    Procter et al. (2014)    Robinson et al. (2014)    White et al. (2008)   