4.6 Article

Effectiveness of a health promotion programme for long-term unemployed subjects with health problems: a randomised controlled trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
卷 63, 期 11, 页码 893-899

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.080432

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health Fund (Fonds OGZ) of The Netherlands [P161]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Employment status is an important determinant of health inequalities. Among unemployed people, poor health decreases the likelihood of re-employment. Methods: A randomised controlled trial with 6 months' follow-up among unemployed people with health complaints receiving social security benefits from the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. In total, 456 people were assigned to the control group and 465 people to the intervention group. The intervention consisted of three sessions weekly over 12 weeks. One session a week focused on education to enhance the ability to cope (health) problems, and two weekly sessions consisted physical activities. The primary outcome measures were perceived health, measured by the Short Form 36 Survey, and psychological measures mastery, self- and pain-related fear of movement. Secondary outcome measures were work values, job search activities and Results: Enrolment in the intervention programme was 65%, and 72% completed the programme with over attendance at all sessions. The intervention had a good reach among subjects with lower education, but had no effect on mental and physical health, mastery, self-esteem and pain-related fear of movement. in the programme had no influence on work values, job search activities or re-employment. Conclusion: This intervention programme aimed at the promotion of physical and mental health in unemployed people with health complaints did not show beneficial effects. The lack of integration into regular vocational rehabilitation activities may have interfered with these findings. This particular health programme cannot be recommended for implementation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据