Abstract
Objective: Systematic review of the health and psychosocial effects of increasing employee participation and control through workplace reorganisation, with reference to the “demand–control–support” model of workplace health.
Design: Systematic review (QUORUM) of experimental and quasi‐experimental studies (any language) reporting health and psychosocial effects of such interventions.
Data sources: Electronic databases (medical, social science and economic), bibliographies and expert contacts.
Results: We identified 18 studies, 12 with control/comparison groups (no randomised controlled trials). Eight controlled and three uncontrolled studies found some evidence of health benefits (especially beneficial effects on mental health, including reduction in anxiety and depression) when employee control improved or (less consistently) demands decreased or support increased. Some effects may have been short term or influenced by concurrent interventions. Two studies of participatory interventions occurring alongside redundancies reported worsening employee health.
Conclusions: This systematic review identified evidence suggesting that some organisational‐level participation interventions may benefit employee health, as predicted by the demand–control–support model, but may not protect employees from generally poor working conditions. More investigation of the relative impacts of different interventions, implementation and the distribution of effects across the socioeconomic spectrum is required.
Keywords: systematic review, public health, employment
Employment is widely regarded as an important determinant of health.1 One of the most influential theories describing this relationship is the “demand–control–support” (DCS) model of workplace health, which hypothesises that employee health may be negatively associated with job demands and positively associated with control and social support in the workplace.1,2,3,4,5,6 Although the model continues to be debated, it has proved influential amongst policy‐makers. The 2004 English public health strategy, Choosing health, recommends increasing job control as a key task for improving population health.7 We have conducted a systematic review of organisational‐level workplace interventions that may achieve this key task.
Observational epidemiological studies have provided fairly consistent evidence that workplace control may be associated with health, but findings have been more mixed with regard to the full DCS model.8,9 Some commentators have emphasised the interactive effects of these psychosocial characteristics, suggesting that the combination of high demand and low control (and low support) adversely affects health, whilst the inverse of these combined characteristics enhances health.3,5,6 Some have prioritised specific parts of the model (e.g. suggesting that control may have stronger associations with health than demands).1,9,10 In addition, researchers have highlighted potentially important individual factors not considered by the model (e.g. personal modes of coping and need to control), and alternative models such as “effort–reward imbalance” have been advanced.11 The degree to which workplace psychosocial factors explain health outcomes independently of variables such as status in the community, income and health behaviours has also been questioned.12
Intervention evaluations have been advocated as a means of testing the validity and applicability of psychosocial theories. Such evaluations have been called “the bullet that psychosocial epidemiology has to bite” to provide evidence for this purpose and influence policy.13 Evaluations of interventions to improve workplace control may help us identify ways not only to improve employee health, but also to reduce health inequalities, as some evidence suggests a social gradient in exposure to work control (i.e. lower occupation groups may experience less control).14
Organisational interventions
Karasek (a theorist in this field) categorised workplace psychosocial interventions by distinguishing “organisational‐level” interventions, aimed at changing the psychosocial environment, from “individual‐level” interventions that focus on how individuals behave and cope with that environment. He argued that organisational interventions were preferable as preventative measures because they addressed the causes of unhealthy working environments.4
The systematic review presented here focuses on site‐specific (rather than area‐wide legal or socioeconomic transitions4) organisational interventions designed to increase employees' opportunities to make decisions or participate in decision‐making processes at work. As managerial structures may change to facilitate employee participation and control, Karasek describes these as “macro‐level” interventions that cut across workplace hierarchies. In a companion systematic review we investigate the health effects of more localised “micro‐level” organisational interventions that affect workers' daily task structures (C Bambra et al., unpublished data).
We know of no other systematic review that focuses on participation interventions. Existing reviews tend to broadly scope workplace intervention evaluations, to include studies that report relatively few data on either health or psychosocial outcomes or to focus on individual‐level interventions.4,15,16,17,18,19,20,21
Systematic reviews are increasingly advocated for identifying and synthesising evaluative evidence on the wider determinants of health and health inequalities.22,23 Employment has been highlighted as a policy area in need of such reviews.23 In this systematic review we ask whether organisational‐level interventions designed to increase employee participation/control lead to health effects predicted by the DCS model.
Methods
Inclusion and exclusion
We included experimental, prospective and retrospective studies evaluating organisational‐level interventions (single or multiple interventions) intended to increase employees' opportunities to make decisions or participate in decision‐making.
We included only studies that evaluated both the psychosocial and health effects of such interventions, so we could explore the relationship between these effects. Psychosocial outcomes included self‐reported demand, control and support or related measures (e.g. work complexity, autonomy, satisfaction with colleagues). Health outcomes included self‐reported physical health, mental health, absenteeism and physical measures. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on workplace injuries, or which did not report workplace psychosocial characteristics beyond general job satisfaction.
Search strategy
We searched for documents of any type, language or nationality. We developed a sensitive electronic search strategy using lists of terms associated with workplace reorganisation, psychosocial outcomes and health (see our protocol: http://www.msoc‐mrc.gla.ac.uk/Evidence/Research/Research_MAIN.html), and searched databases from start date to November 2006 (see box 1). We also searched SIGLE, PAIS, Dissertation Abstracts and other Internet resources, manually searched bibliographies and contacted experts.
What is already known on this subject
The demand–control–support model of psychosocial workplace health has been particularly influential amongst researchers and policy‐makers interested in employee health and health inequalities.
It posits that health is positively associated with employees' sense of control and social support and negatively associated with workplace demands, suggesting that interventions that modify these work characteristics appropriately may benefit employee health.
We initially located 65 282 titles and abstracts, and retrieved 733 for detailed examination. All empirical studies of organisational‐level employee participation interventions were independently assessed by two reviewers (CB and ME) for relevance and methodological quality (tables 1–4).
Box 1 Electronic databases searched (hosts given in parentheses).
| ASSIA (CSA) | ERIC (CSA/Dialog) |
| British Library catalogue | Index to theses |
| Business Periodicals Premier | Medline (Ovid/Dialog) |
| Conference Papers Index (CSA) | NTIS (free version) |
| COPAC | Psycinfo (Dialog/Ovid) |
| Econlit (Dialog/Ovid) | Social Sciences Citation Index (MIMAS) |
| Electronic Collections Online (OCLC firstsearch) | Sociological abstracts (CSA) |
| Embase (Dialog) | Zetoc |
Table 1 Single interventions to increase employee participation and/or control.
| Study | Design and methods appraisal* | Setting and participants | Intervention | Implementation | Psychosocial outcomes (p<0.05)†,‡ | Health outcomes (p<0.05)‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landsbergis and Vivona‐Vaughan (1995)30 | Prospective cohort study with comparison group. Some qualitative components 12‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 77 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Two local government agencies, USA Managers, professionals and clerical staff | Problem‐solving committees moderated by external consultant for elected employee representatives and managers | Authors report support for the intervention from employers and employees, and that some of the committees' proposals were implemented | Demand (D) ↔ Decision latitude (C) ↔ Work involvement (C) ↔ Influence satisfaction (C) ↔ Supervisor relations (S) ↔ Feedback (S) ↔ Co‐worker support (S) ↔ Group goal clarity (O) ↔ Open group process (O) ↑ | Mental health (Job Content Questionnaire) ↔ |
| Bond and Bunce (2001)31 | Prospective cohort study with comparison group 12‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 53 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 | Central government office, UK Civil servants: various grades | Participative action research: workers' steering committee of volunteer employee representatives, set up by external consultant (psychologist) | Few reported details. Committee's proposals for more feedback opportunities in the workplace were adopted by management | Sense of control (C) ↑ Job satisfaction (O) ↔ Self‐rated performance (O) ↑ | Mental ill health (OSI) score: Occupational Stress Indicator ↑ Physical health ↔ Absenteeism ↑ |
| Counte et al (1987)32 | Prospective cohort study with comparison group 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 99 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 | Hospital. USA Nurses | Participative management intervention: committees of nurses given control over personnel, work scheduling, training and some budgeting | Three of the sour committees were reportedly well implemented, but the fourth was hindered by “power struggles”. Many nurses preferred the traditional, hierarchical model of hospital management | Co‐worker satisfaction (S) ↔ Satisfaction with work (O) ↔ | Absenteeism ↔ |
| Bourbonnais et al (2006)33,34 | Prospective repeat cross‐sectional study with comparison group 12‐month follow‐up Final sample: 613 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Hospital, Canada Nurses, orderlies and auxiliary nurses | Participatory intervention based on the German “Health Circles” model. Small groups of different types of employee representatives, led by an external moderator, meet every 2 weeks to identify psychosocial stressors and recommend solutions to employees and management | Intervention developed by researchers in consultation with nursing representatives, following assessment and observations of the workplace. Evidence of co‐operation from management. Some of the less complex recommendations have “already been applied” | Psychological demands (D) ↑ Decision latitude (C) ↔ Supervisor support (S) ↓ Co‐worker support (S) ↑ Reward (O) ↑ Effort–reward imbalance (O) | Psychological distress (Psychiatric Symptom Index) ↔ Sleeping problems (Nottingham Health Profile) ↔ Client‐related burnout ↔ Work‐related burnout ↑ Personal burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) ↔ |
| Park et al (2004)35 | Prospective, controlled, repeat‐cross‐sectional study Baseline 6 months prior to intervention. Follow‐up 1 year after intervention Final sample: n = 1463 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Retail store workers, USA All employees | Action teams created in each intervention store in which employee representative liaised with management and employees to improve team communication and cohesiveness, work scheduling, conflict resolution and recognition of good work | Implementation took place during a period of recession and uncertainty (no explicit references to redundancies). Authors were looking for a buffering effect rather than positive improvements. Assisted by a professional facilitator, who helped build skills amongst team members | Organisational support (S) ↑ Co‐worker support (S) ↑ Involvement with others (S) ↔ Involvement with supervisors (S) ↑ Communication (O) ↔ Safety and health climate (O) ↔ | Overall health status (SF12) ↑ Job stress ↑ |
| Smith et al. (1998)36 | Prospective, repeat cross‐sectional study with nested cohort study with comparison groups 6‐month follow‐up Final sample n = 62 Methods appraisal: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Police station, UK Police officers | Flexible working hours, compared with more rigid 12‐hour shift schedules | Few reported details on effectiveness of implementation or commitment of employers. Around 50% of employees supported the intervention | Workload (D) ↔ Work‐pace control (C) ↔ Satisfaction with rota (O) ↑ | Mental health (GHQ12 mean score) ↑ Physical health (Physical Health Questionnaire) ↔ |
| Wall and Clegg (1981)37 | Prospective cohort study 6‐ and 18‐month follow‐ups Final sample n = 29 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9,1 0 | Factory, UK Manual workers | Immediate control over production transferred to employee work groups with a steering group of representatives overseeing change | Authors suggest that both employees and employers supported the intervention as a means of improving employees' morale | Work complexity (D) ↓ Autonomy (C) ↑ Group identity (S) ↑ Work motivation (O) ↑ Job satisfaction (O) ↑ | Mental health (20‐item GHQ mean scores) ↑ |
*Methods appraisal: 1 = prospective; 2 = representative sample; 3 = appropriate comparison group; 4 = baseline response >60%; 5 = follow‐up >80% in cohort, >60% in cross‐section; 6 = adjustment for non‐response and drop‐out; 7 = conclusions substantiated by data; 8 = adjustment for confounders; 9 = all intervention group exposed, non‐contaminated comparison group; 10 = appropriate statistical tests. †D, demand; C, control; S, social support; O, other psychosocial outcome measures. ‡↑ = improvement; ↓ = worsening; ↔ = little change/inconclusive (with reference to the DCS hypothesis that reduced demands and increased control and support are “improvements”).
Table 2 Participatory and individual‐level interventions.
| Study | Design and methods appraisal* | Setting and participants | Intervention | Implementation | Psychosocial outcomes (p<0.05)†,‡ | Health outcomes (p<0.05)‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikkelsen et al. (2000)38 | Prospective cohort with comparison group Follow‐up 1 week after completion of intervention Final sample n = 82 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 | Two hospitals, Norway Various health professionals, clerical, technical and managerial staff | Workers' steering committees moderated by external consultant. Individual‐level stress management and physical training | Mixed support for intervention from managers and staff. Intervention was dropped after evaluation | Job demands (D) ↑§ Role harmony (D) ↑§ Decision authority (C) ↔ Autonomy (C) ↔ Opportunity to develop (C) ↑§ Social support (S) ↑§ Team style (S) ↔ Contentedness (O) ↑§ | Mental health (Job Content Questionnaire) ↑§ Self‐reported “health complaints” ↔ |
| Maes et al (1998)39 | Prospective cohort with comparison group 1‐, 2‐ and 3‐year follow‐up Individual‐level interventions in year 1 Organisation changes after year 1 Final sample: n = 264 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 | Factory, The Netherlands Manual workers and other staff | Consultative committee (employees, managers and researchers) to discuss organisational change. Concurrent health promotion programme (smoking cessation and physical activity) and psychosocial skills training | Authors provide few details on implementation although employees were said to have been consulted and participation was voluntary | Psychological demands (D) ↑ Control (C) ↑ Social support (S) ↔ Ergonomic conditions (O) ↑ | Serum cholesterol levels in men ↑ Absenteeism ↑ Mental health (5 Symptom Checklist‐90) ↔ Healthy lifestyles (smoking, exercise, alcohol, diet, sleep, BMI) ↔ |
| Orth‐Gomér et al. (1994)40 | Prospective cohort with comparison group 3‐ and 8‐month follow‐up (8‐month only for comparison group) Final sample: n = 121 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Five work groups of civil servants, Sweden Specific job details not reported | 2‐day educational course (on work stress, lifestyle factors and relaxation techniques). Employee work groups to increase control and support and reduce strain in the work environment | “In many cases” managers allocated extra time for this intervention. However, work group members often met during breaks and in their own time. The work groups were largely autonomous, but were assisted in monthly follow‐up sessions by researcher‐trained health workers | Stimulation from and autonomy over work (C) ↑ Perceived support from supervisors (S) ↔ Other factors contributing to “work strain” and social support (details not reported) (O/S) ↔ | Net changes in total serum cholesterol ↔ Serum triglycerides ↔ Serum apolipoprotein AI to apolipoprotein B ratio ↑ Lifestyle factors (smoking, exercise, weight, diet and alcohol) ↔ |
| Bunce and West (1996)41 | Prospective cohort comparing two interventions in two sites with a “no intervention” comparison site 3‐ and 12‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 117 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Hospital, UK Health professionals and clerical staff | Site A: individual‐level stress management training and sessions for employees to propose stress reducing innovations to their work Site B: stress management training only | Authors provide few details on the degree to which proposed innovations were accepted by management. They refer to organisational constraints impeding the innovation group | Individual innovation (C) ↑ Propensity to innovate (C) ↔ | Mental health (GHQ12) ↔ |
*Methods appraisal: 1 = prospective; 2 = representative sample; 3 = appropriate comparison group; 4 = baseline response >60%; 5 = follow‐up >80% in cohort, >60% in cross‐section; 6 = adjustment for non‐response and drop‐out; 7 = conclusions substantiated by data; 8 = adjustment for confounders; 9 = all intervention group exposed, non‐contaminated comparison group; 10 = appropriate statistical tests. †D, demand; C, control; S, social support; O, other psychosocial outcome measures. ‡↑ = improvement; ↓ = worsening; ↔ = little change/inconclusive (with reference to the DCS hypothesis that reduced demands and increased control and support are ‘improvements'). §Short‐term effects (1 week after intervention).
Table 3 Participation, task structure and ergonomic interventions.
| Study | Design and methods appraisal* | Setting and participants | Intervention | Implementation | Psychosocial outcomes (p<0.05)†,‡ | Health outcomes (p<0.05)‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kawakami et al. (1997)42 | Prospective cohort study with comparison group 1‐ and 2‐year follow‐upFinal sample: n = 187 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Factory, Japan Manual workers | Stress reduction “working committee” comprising worksite supervisors, personnel staff and corporate medical staff. More and smaller teams with sub‐supervisors and more on‐the‐job training; and ergonomic improvements | Authors report that employers supported the intervention, although one aspect (on‐the‐job training) was not fully implemented. Prior support from employees is not reported | Work overload (D) ↓ Control (C) ↔ Problems with co‐workers (S) ↔ Problems with supervisors (S) ↔ Chance to learn (O) ↔ | Mean depression (Zung SDS score) ↑ Absenteeism ↑ Systolic blood pressure ↔ Diastolic blood pressure ↔ |
| Evanoff et al. (1999)43 | Retrospective, repeat cross‐sectional study (with “pre‐” and “post‐” routine data analysis on absenteeism) Baseline 1 month after intervention. 6‐ and 14‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 87 Methods appraisal: 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 | Hospital, USA Hospital orderlies | Participatory ergonomics team consisting of three orderlies and one supervisor Ergonomic interventions include new procedures and training for heavy lifting and limited use of mechanical aids. Stated aim was to reduce injury rates | Few reported details on effectiveness of implementation or commitment of employers or employees | Psychological stressors (D)↑ Combined measures (C) ↑ Social support (S) ↑ Job satisfaction (O) | Self‐reported musculoskeletal illness ↑ Absenteeism ↑ |
*Methods appraisal: 1 = prospective; 2 = representative sample; 3 = appropriate comparison group; 4 = baseline response >60%; 5 = follow‐up >80% in cohort, >60% in cross‐section; 6 = adjustment for non‐response and drop‐out; 7 = conclusions substantiated by data; 8 = adjustment for confounders; 9 = all intervention group exposed, non‐contaminated comparison group; 10 = appropriate statistical tests. †D, demand; C, control; S, social support; O, other psychosocial outcome measures. ‡↑ = improvement; ↓ = worsening; ↔ = little change/inconclusive (with reference to the DCS hypothesis that reduced demands and increased control and support are ‘improvements').
Table 4 Participatory interventions and downsizing.
| Study | Design and methods appraisal* | Setting and participants | Intervention | Implementation | Psychosocial outcomes (p<0.05)†,‡ | Health outcomes (p<0.05)‡ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikkelsen and Saksvik (1999)44 | Prospective cohort study with two intervention groups and two comparison groups. 1‐week and 12‐month follow‐up Final sample: n = 125 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 | Post office depot, Norway Manual and clerical workers | Conference on working conditions followed by supervisor and employee workgroups meeting for 2 hours each week (nine times in total). intervention was moderated by consultants. Intervention took place during period of company downsizing | Authors report that union and management helped design intervention. In one department, the intervention was not successfully implemented because steering group members lost interest and personnel were relocated or made redundant | Job demands (D) ↔ Skill discretion (C) ↔ Decision authority (C) ↔ Laissez‐faire (C) ↓§ Social support (S) ↔ Individual consideration (S) ↑§ Job satisfaction (O) ↔ Management style (O) ↔ Opportunity to develop (O) ↔ Contentedness (O) ↔ Learning climate (O) ↔ Intellectual stimulation (O) ↑§ | Self‐reported job stress ↔ Self‐reported health complaints ↔ Self‐reported trait anxiety ↔ |
| Woodward et al. (1999)45 | Prospective, cohort study 1‐year and 2‐year follow‐up Final sample: n = 346 Methods appraisal 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Two teaching hospitals, Canada Managers, doctors, nurses, clerical and technical staff | Management–employee design teams set up to implement “re‐engineering” of hospital services, including a merger and (mostly management) redundancies. Staff required to reapply for posts | Few reported details on effectiveness of implementation or commitment of employers or employees to employee participation | Demands (D) ↓ Role clarity (D) ↓ Decision latitude (C) ↔ Job influence (C) ↔ Co‐worker support (S) ↓ Supervisor support (S) ↓ Teamwork (S) ↓ Job insecurity (O) ↓ | Mean emotional exhaustion (Maslach Burnout Inventory) ↓ Mean anxiety (10‐item State Anxiety Scale) ↓ Mean depression (10‐item scale) ↓ |
| Parker et al. (1997)46 | Prospective, cohort study 4‐year follow‐up Final sample: 139 Methods appraisal: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | Factory. UK Managerial, clerical, manual employees | “Empowerment initiative”: multiskilling, management restructuring, work teams and greater emphasis on employee development. Company downsizing at all levels, but particularly for clerical and manual workers | Few reported details on implementation although an independent body (Investors in People) judged the empowerment initiative to have been a success | Demands all (D) ↓ Demands manual¶ (D) ↓ Role clarity all (D) ↔ Role clarity manual (D) ↔ Control all (C) ↑ Control manual (C) ↔ Participation all (C) ↑ Participation manual (C) ↑ Satisfaction all (O) ↔ Satisfaction manual (O) ↑ | Combined mean score: anxiety–contentment, depression–enthusiasm (all)§ ↔ Combined mean score: anxiety–contentment, depression–enthusiasm (management)§ ↑ |
| Heaney et al. (1993)47 | Retrospective, cohort study 6‐year follow‐up Final sample: n = 277 Methods appraisal: 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 | Factory, USA Manual employees and supervisors | Participatory action research committee (representing management, union and researchers) helped establish a stress and wellness committee (made up of employee representatives). Downsizing and creation of hierarchical management structure in one department (site 1), whilst another (site 2) maintained a more “co‐operative”, less hierarchical structure | Authors report a lack of support from higher management and union representatives, especially in site 1 | Participative climate (C) ↔ Participation (C) ↔ Co‐worker instrumental support (S) ↔ Co‐worker emotional support (S) ↔ Supervisor instrumental support (S) ↔ Supervisor emotional support (S) ↓ | Mean scores for depressive symptoms (Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression (11‐item scale, 1–3 points) ↔ |
| Herting et al. (2003)48 | Qualitative, retrospective panel study based on a series of in‐depth interviews. A randomly selected panel of six secretaries received three interviews each over time. T1 = 3 months after restructuring, T2 = 15 months after, T3 = 27 months after Final sample: n = 6 | Hospital, Sweden Clerical staff | (a) “Collaboration meetings” between clerical and professional employees (b) Labour‐saving ergonomic changes (c) Downsizing linked with restructuring | Restructuring prompted by government cost‐cutting. Degree to which managers supported the participatory intervention is not clear. Mixed response from clerical workers to the intervention | Respondents report that they have too much work (D) ↓ Respondents report that they feel a loss of control (C) ↓ Respondents report communication problems and feelings of inferiority when dealing with senior staff (S) ↓ | Mental health: respondents report feeling “close to tears”; lacking “joy” and “motivation”; becoming “irritable” and “snappy”; poor sleep; lack of energy; feelings of shame and frustration ↓ |
*Methods appraisal: 1 = prospective; 2 = representative sample; 3 = appropriate comparison group; 4 = baseline response >60%; 5 = follow‐up >80% in cohort, >60% in cross‐section; 6 = adjustment for non‐response and drop‐out; 7 = conclusions substantiated by data; 8 = adjustment for confounders; 9 = all intervention group exposed, non‐contaminated comparison group; 10 = appropriate statistical tests. †D, demand; C, control; S, social support; O, other psychosocial outcome measures. ‡↑ = improvement; ↓ = worsening; ↔ = little change/inconclusive (with reference to the DCS hypothesis that reduced demands and increased control and support are ‘improvements'). §Short‐term effects. ¶All = manual, clerical and managerial staff; Manual = Manual staff (for whom separate figures are given because their mental health appeared to improve following the intervention).
Data extraction, appraisal and synthesis
Critical appraisal criteria were adapted from the systematic review methodological literature and existing systematic reviews of complex interventions.24,25,26,27 Data were abstracted by one reviewer (ST) and checked by another (ME). We calculated effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where possible, but it should be noted that these sometimes differed from p values reported in the original articles, possibly because our calculations relied on summarised final sample size data reported in journals, rather than original datasets. Heterogeneity in interventions, study designs, comparison groups, outcome measures and reporting of data made meta‐analysis and comparisons of effect sizes between studies problematic. Therefore, we used narrative synthesis: categorising and tabulating data by intervention type, methodology, setting and outcome, and describing studies in a narrative that emphasised more methodologically robust (e.g. prospective, controlled) studies.24,25,28,29
Results
We identified 18 studies (published between 1981 and 2006) that examined both the health and psychosocial impacts of organisational interventions aimed at increasing employee participation/control.30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48 Four were identified through manual searches,30,36,40,42 the rest electronically.
Most included studies evaluated interventions involving “participatory” or “problem‐solving” committees of employee representatives. These were usually established to identify ways of tackling workplace stressors, although one had wider powers concerning budgeting and human resources.32 Some participatory interventions were implemented in combination with individual‐level interventions,38,39,40,41 ergonomic improvements,42,43 or organisational downsizing (tables 1–4).44,45,46,47,48
We identified 12 prospective studies with non‐randomised comparison groups.30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44 Comparison groups typically consisted of employees from similar departments or workplaces to the intervention groups. Key findings from these prospective controlled studies are summarised in the text. We also identified three uncontrolled prospective37,45,46 and three retrospective43,47,48 studies (one of which was qualitative48). Tables 1–4 summarise findings and methodological details from all the studies.
Single‐intervention studies
Six of the seven studies evaluating single participatory interventions were prospective with comparison groups.30,31,32,33,34,35,36 (table 1). Apart from one study of employees given more control over their working hours,36 the interventions took the form of employee committees to identify workplace stressors and ways to reduce them. One committee's role was semimanagerial.32
Two cohort studies with comparison groups had civil service settings. One examined the effects of establishing problem‐solving committees comprising managers, elected employee representatives and an external consultant at two regional public health departments in the USA.30 After 12 months, neither employees' adjusted mean depression scores nor rates of self‐reported sleeping problems had changed significantly. There was little change (p>0.05) in self‐reported demand, control or support (Job Contents Questionnaire (JCQ)).
The other examined a UK central government office where a workers' committee of volunteer employee representatives, moderated by a consultant psychologist, was established.31 After 12 months, mean scores for “sense of control” increased in the intervention group from 10.31 (95% CI 9.65 to 10.97) to 12.70 (95% CI 11.96 to 13.44) (p<0.0001) and decreased in the comparison group from 10.86 (95% CI 10.16 to 11.56) to 10.65 (95% CI 9.40 to 11.90). Mean Occupational Stress Indicator scores for mental ill health improved from 57.56 (95% CI 54.19 to 60.93) to 52.27 (95% CI 45.96 to 58.58) in the intervention group relative to the comparison group's increase from 53.19 (95% CI 49.45 to 56.93) to 58.96 (95% CI 53.99 to 63.93) (p = 0.014). The intervention group also experienced reductions in routinely recorded sickness absence.
A prospective cohort study found that a participative management intervention in a hospital in the USA appeared to have little effect (p>0.05) on psychosocial and health outcomes.32
A Canadian repeat cross‐sectional study evaluated a “quality circles” hospital intervention involving externally moderated, problem‐solving committees of employee representatives focusing on workplace stressors. After 12 months, mean JCQ scores decreased for “psychological demands” (mean of differences between before and after scores: experimental group = −0.56 (95% CI −0.94 to −0.18); comparison group = −0.31 (95% CI −0.68 to 0.07); p = 0.015); and “supervisor support” (mean differences: experimental group = −0.57 (95% CI −0.86 to −0.27); comparison group = −0.92 (95% CI−1.21 to −0.63); p = 0.028).33,34 Improvements were reported for “co‐worker support” (mean differences: experimental group = 0.04 (95% CI −0.16 to 0.25); comparison group = −0.12 (95% CI −0.32 to 0.08); p = 0.056), “reward” (mean differences: experimental group = 0.41 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.83); comparison group = −0.16 (95% CI −0.58 to 0.25); p = 0.001) and “effort–reward imbalance” (mean differences: experimental group = −0.04 (95% CI −0.07, to −0.01); comparison group = −0.01 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.01); p = 0.002), but not for “decision latitude” (p = 0.382). Psychiatric Symptom Index mean scores for “psychological distress” (p = 0.205) and self‐reported sleeping problems (p = 0.210) were inconclusive, as were Copenhagen Burnout Inventory mean scores (p>0.8), except for a reduction in “work‐related burnout” (mean differences: experimental group = −1.83 (95% CI −3.58 to −0.09); comparison group = 0.06 (95% CI −1.66 to 1.78); p = 0.034).
A US repeat cross‐sectional study evaluated the effects of externally moderated “problem‐solving” committees of employee representatives in 11 retail stores.35 Relative to employees in 10 comparison stores, the intervention group reported improvements in mean scores (Eisenberger and Worksite Health Climate Scales) for “organisational support” (p = 0.001), “co‐worker support” (p<0.001), “involvement with supervisors” (p = 0.02), “overall health status” (SF12) (p = 0.004) and “job stress” (Cohen's six‐item scale) (p = 0.02) after 12 months. Inconclusive evidence of improvements were found for “involvement with others” (p = 0.06), “communication” (p = 0.07) and “safety and health climate” (p = 0.07).
A prospective, repeat cross‐sectional study with nested cohort study of two UK police departments found that GHQ12 mean scores (psychological well‐being) improved after 6 months for workers given more control over shift rotas compared with employees with fixed rotas (p<0.05).36 Changes in self‐reported demand, control and physical health varied little between the two groups.
Multi‐intervention studies
Eleven (including six controlled) studies examined participation interventions delivered as part of packages of interventions.38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48
Participation and individual‐level interventions
Four studies evaluated employee committees combined with individual‐level health promotion, education and behaviour interventions, such as anti‐smoking or physical activity interventions, and training in relaxation techniques, stress reduction and communication skills (table 2).38,39,40,41
A prospective Norwegian hospital study38 examined the impact of stress management and physical training sessions combined with an externally moderated workers' steering committee to improve health and organisational performance. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, mean JCQ scores were found to have decreased after a week for “job demands” (from 13.99 to 13.77, relative to the comparison group (in which the JCQ score increased from 12.29 to 14.86): ANCOVA, p<0.05). “Opportunity to develop” improved (from 32.34 to 32.68) relative to the comparison group (36.50 to 32.58) (p<0.05), as did mean Work Apgar Questionnaire scores for “social support” (from 18.43 to 19.84) relative to the comparison group (20.64 to 19.21) (p<0.05) and “role harmony” (3.86 to 4.43) relative to the comparison group (4.88 to 3.93) (p<0.05). “Work‐related stress” (JCQ) fell from 6.55 to 5.95 relative to the comparison group (4.07 to 7.36) (p<0.05).
A similar package of interventions (plus smoking restrictions) was evaluated in a Dutch prospective cohort study.39 Individual‐level interventions were implemented in a factory between baseline (T1) and follow‐up at 12 months (T2). Organisational interventions occurred between T2 and follow‐up at 24 (T3) and 36 (T4) months. Mean scores for “control” (Work Stress Questionnaire) increased significantly in the intervention group (from 2.34 (95% CI 2.27 to 2.41) to 2.53 (95% CI 2.48 to 2.58)) but not in the comparison group (from 2.50 (95% CI 2.44 to 2.56) to 2.54 (95% CI 2.48 to 2.60)) between T2 and T3 (p <0.01). Mean scores for “psychological demands” changed little in the intervention group (from 1.49 (95% CI 1.43 to 1.55) to 1.53 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.60)) but increased significantly in the comparison group (from 1.49 (95% CI 1.43 to 1.55) to 1.64 (95% CI 1.57 to 1.71)) between T3 and T4 (p <0.01). Serum cholesterol levels improved in men between T1 and T2 (men: p = 0.02; women: p = 0.09).
Four groups of civil servants in Sweden participated in a 2‐day course on dealing with stress, healthy lifestyles and relaxation techniques.40 Over the following 8 months, employee workgroups met to identify and recommend solutions to workplace stressors. A prospective cohort study with comparison group found that stimulation from and autonomy over work improved significantly in the intervention group (p<0.01) but remained unchanged in the comparison group. There was inconclusive evidence of an increase in perceived support from supervisors (p<0.1). A 6% mean reduction in the ratio between apolipoproteins B and AI (which may indicate reduced cardiovascular risk) was reported (p<0.05), without any concomitant change in the control group. Little evidence of effect was found for measures of total serum cholesterol, serum triglycerides and lifestyle factors (smoking, exercise, weight, diet and alcohol consumption).
A prospective cohort study compared an individual‐level intervention, a combined individual and organisational intervention, and a no‐intervention control in three UK hospital departments.41 Employees who received combined interventions reported improved “individual innovation” at both 3 and 12 months' follow‐up (z‐scores = −0.17 (T1), 0.01 (T2), and 0.92 (T3)) compared with employees receiving no intervention (z‐scores = 0.17 (T1), −0.02 (T2) and 0.09 (T3) (p<0.001). The authors reported little comparative change in job‐induced tension or psychological strain (GHQ12) amongst employees receiving the combined intervention.
Participation and ergonomic interventions
One controlled42 and one uncontrolled study43 evaluated participatory committees combined with ergonomic interventions, i.e. attempts to reduce physical discomfort and workplace injuries by modifying physical environments (including technological improvements) and advising on posture and lifting (table 3).
In a Japanese factory, a committee of worksite supervisors, medical staff and personnel met over several months to devise a programme to reduce worksite stressors identified by the supervisors. This involved increased teamworking, overtime and ergonomic improvements.42 After 2 years, a prospective controlled study found no significant psychosocial changes except for an increase in “work overload” (from 26% to 43%) relative to the comparison group (28% to 26%) (p = 0.054). The authors also reported reductions in short‐term (1–5 days) absenteeism in the intervention group (52% to 34%) relative to the comparison group (33% to 37%) (p = 0.034); and mean Zung self‐rated depression scores (intervention group 41.1 to 38.6; comparison group 41.5 to 42.3; p = 0.025) amongst men.
Negative organisational change
Amongst five studies evaluating employee participation interventions intended to reduce the negative effects of organisational downsizing (e.g. job insecurity/redundancies), only one was prospective and controlled (table 4).45 This study in a Norwegian post office compared departments that instigated externally moderated working conditions groups (involving supervisors and employees) with a no‐intervention group of employees. The authors reported little difference in psychosocial or health outcomes after 1 week, and none after 12 months, except for self‐reported “commitment” (p<0.05).
Health inequalities
Studies reporting differential effects by social group could potentially shed light on how paticipation interventions might help tackle health inequalities. Only one included study reported a differential effect of an intervention by gender, finding that serum cholesterol levels improved for men but not women (T1–T2: men, p = 0.02; women, p = 0.09).39 One controlled study reported that participation interventions preceded psychosocial improvements (p<0.05) for black and Hispanic, but not white, employees, but similar interactions were not observed for overall health status and job stress.35
Several studies looked at particular occupational groups—manual workers, clerical staff, health professionals, police or managers—and found health improvements following some of the interventions reviewed here. Only one (uncontrolled) study compared an intervention's effects across two or more occupational groups. It found improvements in mean scores for strain (anxiety–contentment and depression–enthusiasm 5‐point scales) for manual factory workers (from 2.71 to 2.45; p<0.01), but not managers or clerical staff (p>0.05), 4 years after a participation intervention implemented during company downsizing.46
Psychosocial factors and health
Eight (including four controlled) studies reported post‐intervention improvements in measures of control/participation.31,37,38,39,40,41,43,46 Seven of these also reported health improvements, whilst one uncontrolled study reported little change in health.41 Two studies of participation interventions during downsizing reported declines in employee control: one also reported worsening health,48 whilst the other reported no significant health effects.44
Reductions in demands were reported in three controlled studies33,34,38,39 and an uncontrolled study43 and at least one health outcome improved each time.
Two controlled35,38 and two uncontrolled studies37,43 reported improvements in both support and health. One controlled study found little change in health despite improvements in support44 and another found limited health improvements when support from colleagues improved but supervisor support worsened.33,34 Reduced support was reported along with worsening health in two uncontrolled studies45,48 and little health impact was observed in another.47
Regarding the hypothesis that decreased demands and increased control and support interact to enhance health,3,5,6 this combination was reported in only two studies reviewed here (one of which was uncontrolled, while the other followed up outcomes for only 1 week), whilst a third study reported decreased demands, increased control and little change in support.38,39,43 All three reported improvements in at least one health outcome. This evidence broadly fits the above hypothesis but is insufficient to validate it.
The corollary of the above hypothesis is suggested by a qualitative study reporting that increased demands and decreased control and support occurred with worsening health indicators.48 However, one controlled study reported health improvements despite increased demands and little change to control or support.42 In two uncontrolled studies, health improved alongside increased demands and improved control37,46 and support.37
Discussion
Evidence quality and availability
This systematic review identified 18 studies that evaluated both the health and psychosocial impacts of organisational‐level interventions intended to increase employee participation in workplace decision‐making. None of the 12 controlled studies found evidence of health deterioration, whilst eight31,33,34,35,36,38,39,40,42 (along with three uncontrolled studies37,43,46) found evidence of health improvements.
Some of the reported health measures might more properly be considered proxies (e.g. some “burnout” measures and biomarkers). Most measures were self‐reported and the length of follow‐up ranged from 1 week to 4 years. Adjustments for confounding were often poorly reported, absent or limited to demographic rather than health variables. Evaluations of multiple interventions tended not to identify effects specific to the organisational‐level interventions most relevant to this review.
However, evaluations of the health effects of complex social interventions are relatively rare (e.g. compared with individual‐level and therapeutic interventions) and often take the form of “natural experiments” requiring pragmatic methodological designs. Although we identified no randomised controlled trials, the number of prospective studies with comparison groups in this review compares favourably with the evidence available for many other types of sociostructural interventions affecting health26,49,50,51
Research and policy
More robust evidence is required, but the findings from this review remain broadly compatible with the UK Department of Health's view that increasing employee control is a key task for policy‐makers.7 We found that health improvements (e.g. improved mental health and reduced sickness absenteeism) may sometimes result from such interventions. The only negative health effects were reported in two uncontrolled studies that may have been confounded by organisational downsizing.45,48 Qualitative evidence suggests that job insecurity and communication barriers associated with workplace hierarchies may hinder participation interventions.48
What little evidence is available suggests that participation interventions may benefit lower grade workers and employees belonging to ethnic minorities. Hence, the potential of such interventions for reducing workplace health inequalities is worthy of further investigation.
Demand, control and support
To establish whether health outcomes are conditional on psychosocial improvements resulting from the interventions, we suggest that future prospective studies should distinguish between employees (from both the intervention and control groups) who do and do not experience psychosocial improvements in demand, control or support. If an intervention influences health through a psychosocial pathway, greater health improvements would be expected amongst intervention group participants who report psychosocial improvements in the work environment (compared with other participants).
The evidence we identified does not report data in this way, but our findings do broadly fit health outcomes hypothesised by the DCS model. Interventions that improved workplace control and/or support did tend to improve employee health. Health improvements did not occur when control or support worsened, except in one case where limited health improvements occurred when colleagues' support improved but supervisor support worsened.33,34 Interventions that reduced demands also improved health (as hypothesised by the model). However, sometimes health improved even when the intervention appeared to increase demands.
We identified limited and somewhat inconsistent evidence to support the hypothesis that low demands and high control (and support) combine to enhance health. The evidence also sheds little light on how other psychosocial models may compare with the DCS model (one study reported improvements in work burnout, improved effort–reward model measures and mixed effects on DCS measures33,34).
In an accompanying review of “micro‐level” organisational interventions affecting employees' task structures, we also found the DCS model to be a useful (but not infallible) predictor of health outcomes (C Bambra et al., unpublished data). However, these “micro‐level” interventions tended to increase demand, decrease control and negatively affect health. In contrast, the participation interventions reviewed here usually had benign or beneficial, but not adverse, health effects (unless accompanied by redundancies).
Limitations
There are several limitations to the interpretation of the studies reviewed here. First, in many of the original papers the reporting of the interventions was generally poor or difficult to assess, even with the help of implementation evaluation tools.27 There is a lack of evidence that the interventions were actually implemented in full, or at all. In the tables we have tried to summarise reported details of intervention implementation, but many papers offered few clues about this. These issues will form the basis of a future paper on implementation. Obviously, it strikes at the core of evaluation practice – what are the authors measuring if the intervention was little more than a paper exercise?
Second, several of the organisational interventions aimed at changing the psychosocial environment took place alongside individual‐level health education or ergonomic initiatives. It is generally not possible to separate out the health effects of the different types of intervention, though some reported health outcomes, such as reductions in injuries and changes in lifestyles such as smoking and diet, could plausibly be attributed to the intervention more directly aimed at these outcomes.
Third, five of the interventions are reported to have taken place while companies were undergoing downsizing and redundancies. In such cases, an absence of negative health effects may indicate a protective effect from increased participation, counteracting the negative psychosocial impacts of downsizing. A controlled study is required to test this hypothesis. The only one we identified found no evidence of health protection.44 Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect the relatively modest interventions of establishing participatory committees to protect workers from substantial deteriorations in workplace conditions. Nor are they necessarily responsible for observed health improvements amongst employees who believe they have survived a downsizing period.46
The hypotheses and methodological issues discussed here should be taken into account, both in the interpretation of existing studies and in the design of future intervention evaluations.
Conclusion
This systematic review of “participatory” interventions has identified evidence of some health benefits occurring when employee control improved or (less consistently) demands decreased or support increased. This finding fits with evidence from some observational epidemiological studies1,8 and is compatible with policy directives on participation at work.7,52 More robust prospective studies along the lines described above, with improved reporting of intervention implementation and differential impacts for different socioeconomic groups, are required to provide a stronger evidence base. The evidence we did identify suggests that the strategy of reorganising workplaces to facilitate employee participation and control offers a potential means of improving employee health and well‐being, although the most effective means of implementing this strategy needs to be better understood.
What this study adds
First systematic review of the health effects of interventions aimed at improving employee control and/or participation in workplace decision‐making.
Interventions that successfully improve employees' sense of control are potentially health improving, although they may not protect workers from generally poor working conditions.
Policy implications
We recommend that policies and interventions that aim to increase job control and autonomy amongst employees should be incorporated in public health strategies.
Acknowledgements
We thank N Barry, S Macintyre, CRD and the peer reviewers. Research funded as part of the ESRC Centre for Evidence‐based Public Health Policy (ESRC grant H141251011), and MP is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive. The funders played no part in the conduct or reporting of the research.
Contributors
ME planned the study, collected and analysed data and is lead author and guarantor. CB, MP, ST, MW and HT assisted in all aspects of the study including writing‐up.
Footnotes
Sources of support: Economic and Social Research Council and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department.
Competing interests: None.
Ethics approval: Ethics approval not required (literature review).
References
- 1.Marmot M, Siegrist J, Theorell T. Health and the psychosocial environment at work. In: Marmot M, Wilkinson R, eds. Social determinants of Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
- 2.Karasek R, Baker D, Marxer F.et al Job decision latitude, job demands and cardiovascular disease: a prospective study of Swedish men. Am J Public Health 198171694–795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Karasek R, Theorell T.Healthy work: stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books, 1990
- 4.Karasek R. Stress prevention through work reorganisation: a summary of 19 case studies. Conditions of Work Digest 19921123–42. [Google Scholar]
- 5.van Vegchel N, de Jonge J, Lansbergis P A. Occupational stress in (inter)action: the interplay between job demands and job resources. J Organizational Behav 200526535–560. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Johnson J, Hall E. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross‐sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health 1988781336–1342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Department of Health Choosing health: Making health choices easier. London: HMSO, 2004
- 8.Marmot M, Theorell T, Siegrist J. Work and coronary heart disease. In: Stansfeld S, Marmot M, eds. Stress and the heart. Psychosocial pathways to coronary heart disease. London: BMJ Books, 200250–71.
- 9.Siegrist J, Marmot M. Health inequalities and the psychosocial environment – two scientific challenges. Soc Sci Med 2004581463–1473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Godin I, Kittel F. Can we disentangle life course processes of accumulation, critical period and social mobility? An analysis of disadvantaged socio‐economic positions and myocardial infarction in the Stockholm Heart Epidemiology Program (SHEEP). Soc Sci Med 2003581543–1553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Siegrist J. Adverse health effects of high effort/low‐reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1996127–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Bartley M.Health inequality: an introduction to theories, concepts and methods. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004
- 13.Macleod J, Davey Smith G. Psychosocial factors and public health: authors' reply. J Epidemiol Community Health 200357553–556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Marmot M, Bosma H, Hemingway H.et al Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence. Lancet 1997350235–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Edwards D J. A systematic review of stress and stress management interventions for mental health nurses. J Adv Nurs 200342169–200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Michie S, Williams S. Reducing work related psychological ill health and sickness absence: a systematic literature review. Occup Environ Med 2003603–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.van der Klink J J L, Blonk R.et al The benefits of interventions for work‐related stress. Am J Public Health 200191270–276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Platt S, Pavis S, Akram G.Changing labour market conditions and health: a systematic literature review (1993–98). Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1999
- 19.Van der Hek H, Plomp H N. Occupational stress management programmes: a practical overview of published effect studies. Occup Med 200147(3)133–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Landsbergis P, Cahill J, Schnall P. The impact of lean production and related new systems of work organisation on worker health. J Occup Health Psychol 19994108–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Parkes K R, Sparkes T I.Organizational interventions to reduce work stress: are they effective? HSE Contract Research Report 193/1998. Colegate, UK: HMSO, 1998
- 22.Wanless D.Securing good health for the whole population: Final report. London: HM Treasury, 2004
- 23.Mackenbach J P, Bakker BB and the EU Network on Interventions and Policies to Reduce Inequalities in Health Tackling socioeconomic inequalities in health: analysis of European experiences. Lancet 20033621409–1414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. York: NHS CRD, 2001
- 25.Clarke M, Oxman A D. eds. Cochrane reviewers' handbook. Oxford: Update Software, 2004
- 26.Ogilvie D.et al Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions. 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? J Epidemiol Community Health 200559886–892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P.et al Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 200256119–127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Boaz A, Ashby D, Denyer D.et al A multitude of syntheses: a comparison of five approaches from diverse policy fields. Evidence and Policy 20062479–502. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Petticrew M, Roberts H.Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006
- 30.Landsbergis P, Vivona‐Vaughan E. Evaluation of an occupational stress intervention in a public agency. J Organisational Behav 19951629–48. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bond F W, Bunce D. Job control mediates change in a work reorganization intervention for stress reduction. J Occup Health Psychol 20016290–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Counte M A, Barhyte D Y, Christman L P. Participative management among staff nurses. Hospital & Health Services Administration 198732(1)97–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vinet A.et al Effectiveness of a participative intervention on psychosocial work factors to prevent mental health problems in a hospital setting. Occup Environ Med 200663335–342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vinet A.et al Development and implementation of a participative intervention to improve the psychosocial work environment and mental health in an acute care hospital. Occup Environ Med 200663326–334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Park K O, Schaffer B S, Griffin‐Blake C S.et al Effectiveness of a healthy work organization intervention: ethnic group differences. J Occup Environ Med 200446623–634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Smith L, Hammond T, Macdonald I.et al 12‐h shifts are popular but are they a solution? Int J Indust Ergon 199821323–331. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Wall T D, Clegg C W. A longitudinal field study of group work redesign. J Occup Behav 1981231–49. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Mikkelsen A, Saksvik P Ø, Landsbergis P. The impact of a participatory organizational intervention on job stress in community health care institutions. Work & Stress 200014156–170. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Maes S, Verhoeven C, Kittel F.et al Effects of a Dutch work‐site wellness‐health program: the Brabantia project. Am J Public Health 1998881037–1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Orth‐Gomer K, Eriksson I, Moser V.et al Lipid lowering through work stress reduction. Int J Behav Med 19941204–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Bunce D, West M A. Stress management and innovation interventions at work. Human Relations 199649209–232. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Kawakami M, Araki S. Effects of work‐related symptoms among Japanese blue‐collar workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 199723(1)54–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Evanoff B A, Bohr P C, Wolf L D. Effects of a participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. Am J Indust Med 199935358–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mikkelsen A, Saksvik P O. Impact of a participatory organizational intervention on job characteristics and job stress. Int J Health Services 199929871–893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Woodward C A, Shannon H S, Cunningham C.et al The impact of re‐engineering and other cost reduction strategies on the staff of a large teaching hospital – a longitudinal study. Medical Care 199937556–569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Parker S K, Chmiel N, Wall T D. Work characteristics and employee well‐being within a context of strategic downsizing. J Occup Health Psychol 19972289–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Heaney C A, Israel B A, Schurman S J.et al Industrial‐relations, worksite stress reduction, and employee well‐being – a participatory action research investigation. J Organizational Behav 199314495–510. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Hertting A, Nilsson K, Theorell T.et al Personnel reductions and structural changes in health care: work‐life experiences of medical secretaries. J Psychosomat Res 200354161–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Bambra C. Whitehead M, Hamilton V. Does “welfare to work” work? A systematic review of the effectiveness of the UK's welfare to work programmes for people with a chronic illness or disability. Soc Sci Med 2005601905–1918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Egan M, Petticrew M, Ogilvie D.et al New roads and human health: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 2003931463–1471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Thomson H, Petticrew M, Morrison D. Health effects of housing improvement: systematic review of intervention studies. BMJ 2001323187–190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, EU Council Directive 89/391, 1989. http://europe.osha.eu.int/data/legislation/ (accessed 21 October 2005)