Effects of a peer coaching intervention for occupational physicians on time allocated to prevention

Abstract Background While the importance of prevention in the workplace is widely recognized, the implementation of preventive tasks by occupational physicians (OPs) in the Netherlands remains limited. To support OPs in their preventive role, a peer coaching intervention was developed and implemented in existing peer groups. Peer coaching has been studied in various settings, but not yet in the context of occupational health. The aim of this study was therefore to examine the effects of the intervention on OPs’ execution of preventive tasks in practice. Methods A total of 41 peer groups including 231 OPs participated in this cluster randomized controlled trial, of which 21 groups were assigned to the intervention condition (N = 106) and 20 to the control condition (N = 125). The intervention consisted of three peer coaching meetings aimed to promote the execution of preventive tasks. Data regarding the execution of preventive tasks, measured as percentage of their working time and hours allocated to specific preventive tasks, were collected at baseline, six-month and twelve-month follow-up. The effect of the intervention was examined by linear multilevel analysis. Results Both the intervention and control group increased the percentage of working time allocated to prevention, from 14% at baseline to 17% at twelve-months follow-up, but no significant differences between the study groups were found. For specific preventive tasks, the intervention group increased their time allocated to giving secondary prevention advice with 5 monthly hours compared to baseline. For other preventive tasks, no effects were found. Discussion The intervention was found to not have an effect: both the intervention and control condition significantly increased their percentage of working time allocated to preventive tasks. This was possibly due to contextual factors. Future studies should focus on willingness of employers and OHS to invest in prevention, and refinement of the intervention under study. Key messages • Despite the intervention, time allocated to prevention increased equally in both groups, likely due to growing contextual awareness in the professional field about the importance of prevention. • The intervention improved time spent on secondary prevention, but systemic barriers like employer cooperation and financial incentives limited broader implementation of preventive tasks.