IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p6074-d569020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact Model-Based Physical-Activity Promotion at the Workplace: Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study in Germany (KomRueBer Study)

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Schaller

    (Working Group Physical Activity-Related Prevention Research, Institute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany)

  • Carina Hoffmann

    (Working Group Physical Activity-Related Prevention Research, Institute of Movement Therapy and Movement-Oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany
    Department Research and Development, Institute for Occupational Health Promotion, Neumarkt 35-37, 50667 Cologne, Germany)

Abstract

There is great potential for the implementation of physical-activity measures at the workplace, especially in smaller companies. The present paper describes the study protocol for evaluating an impact-model-based multicomponent intervention promoting physical activity at the workplace within a cross-company network. The evaluation is based on a logic model focusing on outputs and short-term outcomes for the purpose of physical-activity promotion, physical-activity-related health competence, and knowledge about physical activity. A mixed-methods approach is applied. The quantitative evaluation is conducted as a natural design, and combines a retrospective evaluation of the acceptance, usage, and satisfaction (output) at the end of the measures, and two surveys that capture physical activity, knowledge about physical activity, and physical-activity-related health competence (outcome) of the employees in the form of a trend study. The qualitative evaluation comprises semistructured interviews to investigate knowledge of the existence of and attitude towards the content of the multicomponent intervention and the study. The challenges evaluating complex interventions are widely debated. Through an impact-model-based approach, the study will provide a promising framework for the systematic evaluation of a multicomponent intervention promoting physical activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Schaller & Carina Hoffmann, 2021. "Impact Model-Based Physical-Activity Promotion at the Workplace: Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study in Germany (KomRueBer Study)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6074-:d:569020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6074/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6074/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Rudolf & Lea A. L. Dejonghe & Ingo Froböse & Florian Lammer & Lisa-Marie Rückel & Jessica Tetz & Andrea Schaller, 2019. "Effectiveness Studies in Health Promotion: A Review of the Methodological Quality of Studies Reporting Significant Effects on Physical Activity in Working Age Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    2. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    3. Gugiu, P. Cristian & Rodriguez-Campos, Liliana, 2007. "Semi-structured interview protocol for constructing logic models," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 339-350, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cullen, Patricia & Clapham, Kathleen & Byrne, Jake & Hunter, Kate & Senserrick, Teresa & Keay, Lisa & Ivers, Rebecca, 2016. "The importance of context in logic model construction for a multi-site community-based Aboriginal driver licensing program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-15.
    2. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    3. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    4. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    5. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    7. Deane, Kelsey L. & Harré, Niki, 2014. "Program theory-driven evaluation science in a youth development context," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 61-70.
    8. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    10. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    11. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    12. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    13. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    14. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    15. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    16. Chanel Bjanca V. Balinbin & Krystina Trizia R. Balatbat & Alyssa Nicolette B. Balayan & Maria Isabel C. Balcueva & Mary Grace B. Balicat & Thea Arabelle S. Balidoy & John Rey B. Macindo & Gian Carlo S, 2020. "Occupational determinants of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among Filipino registered nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 955-963, March.
    17. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    18. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111, April.
    19. Fangyuan Chang & Andrea Eriksson & Britt Östlund, 2020. "Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Louise R. Manfredi & Meriel Stokoe & Rebecca Kelly & Seyeon Lee, 2021. "Teaching Sustainable Responsibility through Informal Undergraduate Design Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6074-:d:569020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.