Well-being at Work: Research Into Happiness at Work

April 11, 2024 updated by: University Ghent

Assessing the Effectiveness of a Holistic Semi-tailormade Well-being Intervention at Work: Study Protocol of a Partially Randomized Preference Trial Design

Organizations are becoming increasingly aware that employees are an important factor in gaining and maintaining competitive advantage. Based on the current evidence, a holistic approach, in which different well-being factors and different levels are addressed simultaneously, is needed. However, given the scarcity of this approach in studies, a significant gap in knowledge is demonstrated. This paper tries to address these shortcomings. A partially randomised preference trials design is used to evaluate the impact of an intervention package that focusses on both the individual and organizational level and addresses 3 different domains to improve well-being: psychosocial, ergonomic and lifestyle. The data collection of the research outcomes will be conducted at several points in time. Therefore, a online self-administered questionnaire is developed en will be administered before the start of the intervention. Six and twelve months after the intervention, the short and long term impact of the intervention will be measured. The intervention itself consists of a basic intervention package that will be spread over 3 different days that take place over a time period of maximum 2 weeks. Between 20 and 30 companies will be recruited from a data pool with clients from the Flemish side of Belgium. The sample size of the participating employees should be at least 2000. A stratified random sampling method will be used based on sector type while company size (small-medium-large) will be taken into account

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Background

Since there's a high prevalence of people with work-related mental health problems and chronic diseases, the literature used to mainly focus on the negative impact on the well-being of individuals and the consequences for the organizations and how to prevent this.

The last decades, developing methods for preventing health problems has been recognized as crucial and should be high on the agenda of workplace health promotion programs. The introduction of a positive psychology approach to well-being highlights not only the prevention of health problems but especially creating a healthy organization with an environment that can promote employee health and safety as well as organizational effectiveness by enhancing individual and organizational resources .

Organizations are becoming increasingly aware that employees are an important factor in gaining and maintaining competitive advantage . Therefore, literature has seen a growth on research on constructs such as engagement or flow, thriving at work, flourishing at work, meaning at work, and purpose in life or personal growth. Engagement has become one of the most significant concepts in the management field in recent years. It yields positive outcomes such as high levels of well-being and performance . Individuals who are engaged in their work have higher levels of energy, are enthusiastic about their work, and are completely immersed in their work activities. Furthermore, well-being at work is not only crucial for the well-being of the individual employee but it also has positive consequences for the organization, such as better work performance, higher levels of employee creativity and engagement. It has also been associated with lower rates of absenteeism at work.

With most adults spending around half of their waking hours at work, the workplace is an important setting to promote health and well-being. Multiple studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyzes have shown that workplace interventions may result in positive effects. Therefore, it is very important to address and enhance determinants of workplace-related well-being. Interventions that enhance well-being can take place on both the individual level and the organizational level. On the individual level, well-being and health can be improved by different intervention domains. Firstly, physical activity can improve a healthy lifestyle and well-being. Secondly, psychosocial interventions, such as engagement interventions, resilience training or burnout preventions increase mental health and well-being. Lastly, ergonomic interventions, such as sitting behavior has an impact on health . For employees who attended well-being interventions, the number of absence days due to stress, anxiety and depression had fallen over the following three years. In addition, they reported improvements in their relationships, improvements in sleep patterns and improvements in happiness when at work. On the organizational level, workplace well-being programs are expected to reduce employee healthcare costs, increase productivity, and provide a positive return on investment. However, today, empirical evidence for organizational interventions remains limited and the effectiveness of organizational level workplace interventions has not been fully examined. Furthermore, only a small number of studies have thus far examined organizational interventions or activities as potential antecedents of engagement.

It is proven that interventions addressing both the individual and organizational level components simultaneously lead to better results than interventions exclusively focusing on an individual, or an organizational component. Interventions at multiple levels are preferred due to the potential synergistic effects on both employee well-being and performance. Not only is it important to include a combination of both individual-level and organizational-level interventions, but also interventions that are addressing different well-being domains at once - such as ergonomic, psychosocial and lifestyle domain - had a higher chance of reporting significant health improvements than those restricted to one well-being intervention domain. A systematic review indicated that a multi-domain intervention combining physical activity, cognitive training and nutrition exerted beneficial effects. Overall, multi-component programs were more effective than single-component interventions .

Although the monetary aspect (productivity) is an essential part for the organizations whether to implement an intervention or not, organizations and workplaces are also a social and psychological context in which people live, work and relate. Therefore, in order to increase productivity, a holistic intervention approach that addresses more than only the financial aspect, but also other well-being aspects (e.g. engagement and health) will be more effective and should be high on the agenda.

Furthermore, literature has shown the importance of tailor-made interventions because this increases the relevance of the intervention for participants. Tailoring well-being programs have an increased likelihood of success when tailored to the special features of each workplace environment. The effects of the tailored interventions were superior to the generic interventions.

Design

A partially randomized preference trial design with waiting list will be used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention package to improve engagement, job satisfaction and commitment at work. The intervention group will consist of employees from different organizational levels receiving a package of different well-being interventions and will be compared to a control group that does not receive this intervention. Comparison between the groups will be done by collecting psychosocial, ergonomic and lifestyle data through an online questionnaire. The study participants are Flemish adults, employed in a company from one of the following sectors: construction, transportation, industry, IT and health care. We aimed to include at least 2000 participants over 20-30 different companies.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics of baseline characteristics will be reported through numbers and proportions. All analyses will be conducted using SPSS software (version 25.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois) or R software (version…., R Core Team…) and the level of significance will be set at p < 0.05 (5%) . T-tests and chi-square tests will be used to compare differences between pre- and post-intervention outcomes and also between intervention participants and non-participants identified at the post-intervention survey.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

2000

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

  • Name: Sophie Vandepitte

Study Locations

  • Belgium
      • Ghent, Belgium, 9000
        • Recruiting
        • Ghent University
        • Contact:
          • Braeckman Lutgart

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 73 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Sufficient knowledge in one of the languages (Dutch, French, English)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Factorial Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Holistic semi-tailormade well-being (intervention) group
They receive the holistic semi-tailormade intervention, consisting of training and workshops in three well-being domains: psychosocial, ergonomic and lifestyle. In addition to this intervention, they still receive their standard interventions
Behavioral: Holistic semi-tailormade well-being intervention
The holistic well-being intervention consists of a mandatory basic package that will take 2 half days and 1 full day to complete. In the first half day, the conclusion of the baseline measurement will be discussed, as well as the specific outline of the well-being thay. On the well-being day, three trained professionals from an HR service company, called Liantis, will guide these interventions (consisting of training and workshops) in the workplace. Only a small proportion of the company employees, called the ambassadors, will attend the well-being day. In the second half day, the ambassadors will be coached to disseminate the obtained information to the entire workplace. This information will be personalized according to the problems, needs and context of each company. Besides the basic package, an optional expertise package will be offered during this second half day. In the period afterwards, the ambassadors are followed every 2 months by means of a semi-structured interview.
No Intervention: Standard well-being (control) group
At first, they receive standard well-being interventions. After six or twelve months, this group can participate in the holistic semi-tailormade well-being intervention.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Engagement
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (9 items) from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Jobsatisfaction
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported Jobsatisfaction (1 item) from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Commitment
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported COPSOQ subscale 'Commitment' (5 items) from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Life satisfaction
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported life satisfaction, measured with Cantril Ladder, from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Affect
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported positive and negative affect, measured with the PANAS (10 items), from baseline measurement to follow-ups measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Basic needs
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported basic need satisfaction and frustration, measured with the BNSFS (12 items), from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Burnout
Time Frame: Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months
Change in self-reported burnout, measured with the UBOS (15 items), from baseline measurement to follow-up measurements at 6 and 12 months
Change from baseline to post-interventional measurement at 6 and 12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

University Ghent

Collaborators

Liantis

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Lutgart Braeckman, University Ghent
  • Principal Investigator: Lieven Annemans, University Ghent

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Estimated)

August 31, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

August 31, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

November 30, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

December 20, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

December 21, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 12, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 11, 2024

Last Verified

April 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • BC10608

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Well-being at Work

Clinical Trials on Holistic semi-tailormade well-being intervention

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Macedonia

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe