Intermediate OHS Outcomes
Effect estimates: Intermediate 1: Intervention (from figure): pre: 58; post: 45. Comparison (from figure): pre: 69; post: 75. Intermediate 2a: Intervention (from figure): pre: 140; post: 92. Comparison (from figure): pre: 140; post: 120. Intermediate 2b: Intervention (from figure): pre: 76; post: 44. Comparison (from figure): pre: 76; post: 68. Intermediate 3: Intervention: 48. Comparison: 9. Intermediate 4: Intervention: 13. Comparison (implied): 0. Test statistics: Intermediate 1: F(1,148) = 109.05, t(1) = -4.63. Intermediate 2a: F(1,141) = 66.64. Intermediate 2b: F(1,139) = 41.34.
Qualitative findings: Intermediate 5: Comments from the intervention group were positive about the program and indicated belief in its effectiveness. Comments from the comparison group suggested a reluctance to report incidents because of fear of retribution.
P-value: Intermediate 1, 2a, 2b: p < 0.001 for all F-statistics and t- statistics.
Final OHS Outcomes Cost of Intervention Economic Outcomes Facilitators/ Barriers
Did the Design Lack Statistical Power? No. Effect detected in all tests conducted.
Were Any Harms of the Intervention Identified? No. IWH Reviewers’ Comments:
Uncertainty existed as to reason that one site was selected for intervention and the other one not, as well as the equivalency of other events during the trial. The initial equivalency of the two sites was uncertain, because there was no investigation of staff characteristics at the two sites, and no other description that would reassure the reader of equivalency. The initial differences in ASCI scores between the two groups only furthered this concern. On the other hand, the study used multiple measures, some of which were objective, and all of which were consistent in their direction of change.
Institute for Work & Health