Applying the chronicle workshop as a method for evaluating participatory interventions

Abstract

Despite the growing interest for process evaluation in participatory interventions, studies examining specific methods for process evaluation are lacking. In this paper, we propose a new method for process evaluation--the Chronicle Workshop. The Chronicle Workshop has not previously been used in intervention studies. The method was tested in three small and medium-sized companies. Four to six employees participated in each Chronicle Workshop, which was the last activity of the participatory preventive intervention program PoWRS. The program aims at creating changes which have a positive effect on both productivity and well-being.In all cases we saw that the Chronicle Workshop gave valuable information about the intervention process and that it initiated a joint reflection among participants from different departments. The Chronicle Workshop makes it possible to better understand the results of the intervention, the factors affecting it, and the outcome evaluation based on a summary view of the company and interventionrelated factors that influence the intervention program and results.

Organizational Interventions for Health and Well-being

“…In a study by Aust et al (2010), occupational health consultants suggested that the focus on participation had been problematic as employees were poorly equipped to manage the process and line managers felt unsure about their role. Framke and Sørensen (2015) reported that the opportunity to fit the intervention to the organization was perceived to be a strength and Poulsen et al (2015) found that the pressure to bill time on projects prevented employees from engaging with the intervention. reported that their SME-focused intervention did not fare well in an organization where people worked across different shifts because communication and participation was limited across shifts.…”

Continuous evaluation of participants’ perceptions of impact: Applying a boundary object in organizational‐level interventions

“…To gain insight into the participants’ use and adaption experiences with the visualization object, we conducted semi‐structured interviews, observations and chronicle workshops (CWs; Limborg & Hvenegaard, ; Poulsen, Ipsen & Gish, ), followed by a cross‐case analysis (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, ). Data collection was conducted eight times during the intervention period of 6 to 9 months.…”

“…The answers for questions 2 and 3 are mapped on the timeline. The outcome of the CW is a summary view of intervention‐related results and influencing factors (Poulsen et al, ).…”

“…Steckler and Linnan () defined process evaluation as a “focus on the extent to which the intervention was implemented with the content, accuracy, coverage, and quality that was planned”. This strict focus on the intervention, particularly on its components and outcome, limits our understanding of the social mechanisms that are at work in organizations, including autonomy in decision‐making (Kompier, Cooper, & Geurts, ). To get insight into what works in interventions (Nielsen et al, ), researchers in occupational health, therefore, focus both on the social mechanisms and the intervention components and outcome (Bauer & Jenny, ).…”

‘Same, but different’: A mixed-methods realist evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled participatory organizational intervention

“…(Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2013: 285–286) In practice, contexts are diverse and are studied in a number of different ways, and, as a result, establishing general patterns of how combinations of organizational interventions and contexts produce (or fail to produce) certain effects is still challenging (Daniels et al, 2017; Havermans et al, 2016). However, as an example of an important contextual factor, Poulsen et al (2015) reported that the participants in their POI study experienced a pressure to bill time on work projects that deterred employees from engaging in the intervention. In relation to concurrent contextual events, Nielsen et al (2006) demonstrated how the differences in the context and implementation of a health promotion initiative led to markedly different effects in the targeted workplaces.…”