Getting Everyone on the Same Page
Abstract
In designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions, program logic plays a central role as it outlines the core components of the intervention and links them to both proximal and distal outcomes. Also, central in the design, implementation, and evaluation of organizational interventions is the engagement of stakeholders across the organization (employees, managers, and specialists). Concrete tools are lacking for stakeholders to be engaged in the design of interventions and in defining criteria that can guide evaluation. This chapter outlines a structured process the cocreated program logic (COP) process for how organizational stakeholders can be involved in defining intervention goals and activities and thus forming the program logic together with interventionists (researchers or consultants). The program logic can then be used to guide the evaluation of the organizational intervention. The authors present two cases illustrating how the COP process has been used in their reserach. The chapter ends with lessons learned.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Involving diverse stakeholders in intervention development has been recommended to enhance accuracy, fit, and sense of ownership within the specific setting.
“When developing interventions, involving diverse stakeholders (e.g., patients, healthcare staff and their managers, researchers, and policy makers) has been recommended to enhance accuracy, fit, and sense of ownership within the specific setting [15, 16].”
From Developing a primary care-based cognitive behavioral intervention for anxiety in children through a participatory approach: a qualitative study. (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
von Thiele Schwarz, U., Aarons, G. A., & Hasson, H. (2019) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-019-4668-y · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Self-citationGreiner, B. A., Leduc, C., O’Brien, C., Cresswell‐Smith, J., Rugulies, R., Wahlbeck, K., Abdulla, K., Amann, B. L., Pashoja, A. C., Coppens, E., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277114 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Jackson, J. A., Sund, M., Lobos, G. B., Melin, L., & Mathiassen, S. E. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067633 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Development and Validation of a Multi-Dimensional Measure of Activity-Based Working Behaviors
Bäcklander, G., Fältén, R., Danielsson, C. B., Toivanen, S., & Richter, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655881 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“The co-created development process (von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2018), using several rounds of workshops, interviews, and content validation as well as refinements of the instrument (Smith and McCarthy, 1995), is an important strength of our study, ensuring both face and content validity.”
MethodSelf-citationRoozeboom, M. B., Wiezer, N. M., Schelvis, R. M. C., Niks, I. M. W., & Boot, C. R. L. (2024) · Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health · doi:10.5271/sjweh.4141 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Costea, V.-A., Bäck, A., Bergström, A., Lundin, A., Hasson, H., & Eriksson, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2024.1408801 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationTeoh, K., Lishman, E., Page, A., & Donnelly, O. (2025) · Journal of Work-Applied Management · doi:10.1108/jwam-01-2025-0014 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Jackson, J. A., Januário, L. B., & Mathiassen, S. E. (2026) · IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors · doi:10.1080/24725838.2026.2639100 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Isaksson, A., Åhlén, J., Hasson, H., & Eriksson, L. (2026) · BMC Primary Care · doi:10.1186/s12875-026-03191-y
Self-citation
- Authors
- Schwarz, U. V. T., Richter, A., & Hasson, H.
- Venue
- Organizational Interventions for Health and Well-being
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2018-06-14
- Pages
- 42-67
- OpenAlex
- W2903795101
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- program logic, stakeholder engagement, organizational interventions, intervention design, intervention evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
