Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39789480›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2025

Implementing a workplace participatory approach to support working caregivers in balancing their work, private life and informal care: results of a process evaluation.

Eline E Vos, Simone R de Bruin, Allard J van der Beek, Denise J M Smit, Karin I Proper

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eline E VosNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands. eline.vos.02@rivm.nl.
Simone R de BruinDepartment of Health and Wellbeing, Research Group, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Living well with dementia, Campus 2, P.O. Box 10090, Zwolle, 8000 GB, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, 1081 BT, The Netherlands.
Denise J M SmitNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands.
Karin I ProperNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Center for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Department Behaviour and Health, Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, Bilthoven, 3721 MA, The Netherlands. karin.proper@rivm.nl.

Funding

Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu S/040001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany organizations are faced with growing numbers of employees who combine their jobs with informal caregiving responsibilities. To support working caregivers in maintaining a good balance between work, private life and informal care, a workplace participatory approach (PA) intervention was implemented in four Dutch organizations. This study's aims were to evaluate the degree of PA implementation, contextual factors influencing implementation, and stakeholder experiences with the PA.

methodsA mixed methods process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial among three stakeholder groups: caregiving employees, their supervisors, and trained occupational professionals who acted as PA process facilitators. The implementation frameworks of Steckler and Linnan (2002) and Carrol et al. (2007) were applied to evaluate recruitment, reach, dosage, fidelity and context, as well as stakeholders' satisfaction, experiences and perceived intervention outcomes. Data were collected after PA implementation (4-7 months) using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, checklists and research logs.

resultsOf the 57 caregivers in the intervention group, 48 participated in the stepwise intervention. Among them, 20 (42%) completed all seven steps of the PA, and 30 (63%) involved their supervisors. PA implementation and supervisor involvement varied based on personal factors (e.g. a need for balance-related improvements; preference to keep caregiving private), interpersonal factors (e.g. caregiver-supervisor relationship quality), and organizational factors (high work demands; a supportive workplace culture for caregivers). Caregivers, supervisors, and process facilitators reported positive experiences with the PA, finding it valuable for addressing informal caregiving, receiving support and working on balance-related changes in multiple life domains. Some caregivers, however, needed more than the standard 3 PA meetings to identify key issues and implement solutions.

conclusionsStakeholders found the PA helpful in addressing working caregivers' work-life balance, but PA implementation can be further stimulated by creating a supportive organizational culture in which it is encouraged and safe to discuss informal care. Moreover, to better support working caregivers in the long term, the PA should be viewed as an ongoing and iterative process taking into account their evolving balance and circumstances.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15363783 (Registration date 21 November 2022; Retrospectively registered).

Indexed as

CaregiversWork-Life BalanceWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSurveys and QuestionnairesCaregiver supportInformal careOccupational professionalsParticipatory approachProcess evaluationSupervisorsWorking caregiversWork-life balanceWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID39789480
PMCPMC11716445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.