2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The health and well-being impacts of a work integration social enterprise from a systems perspective

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Recent research has drawn upon the social determinants of health (SDH) framework to attempt to systematize the relationship between social enterprise and health. In this article, we adopt a realist evaluation approach to conceptualize social enterprises, and work integration social enterprises in particular, as ‘complex interventions’ that necessarily produce differential health outcomes for their beneficiaries, communities and staff. Drawing upon the findings from four social enterprises involving a range of methods including 93 semi-structured interviews with employees, managers and enterprise partners, together with participant observation, we demonstrate that these health outcomes are influenced by a limitless mix of complex and dynamic interactions between systems, settings, spaces, relationships and organizational and personal factors that cannot be distilled by questions of causality and attribution found in controlled trial designs. Given the increased policy focus on the potential of social enterprises to affect the SDH, this article seeks to respond to evidence gaps about the mechanisms and contexts through which social enterprises promote or constrain health outcomes, and thereby provide greater clarity about how research evidence can be used to support the social enterprise sector and policy development more broadly.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

            Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation

              Background There is increasing international interest in the concept of mental well-being and its contribution to all aspects of human life. Demand for instruments to monitor mental well-being at a population level and evaluate mental health promotion initiatives is growing. This article describes the development and validation of a new scale, comprised only of positively worded items relating to different aspects of positive mental health: the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS). Methods WEMWBS was developed by an expert panel drawing on current academic literature, qualitative research with focus groups, and psychometric testing of an existing scale. It was validated on a student and representative population sample. Content validity was assessed by reviewing the frequency of complete responses and the distribution of responses to each item. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the scale measured a single construct. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was explored in terms of correlations between WEMWBS and other scales and by testing whether the scale discriminated between population groups in line with pre-specified hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was assessed at one week using intra-class correlation coefficients. Susceptibility to bias was measured using the Balanced Inventory of Desired Responding. Results WEMWBS showed good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the single factor hypothesis. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 (student sample) and 0.91 (population sample) suggests some item redundancy in the scale. WEMWBS showed high correlations with other mental health and well-being scales and lower correlations with scales measuring overall health. Its distribution was near normal and the scale did not show ceiling effects in a population sample. It discriminated between population groups in a way that is largely consistent with the results of other population surveys. Test-retest reliability at one week was high (0.83). Social desirability bias was lower or similar to that of other comparable scales. Conclusion WEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale, with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for monitoring mental well-being at a population level. Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale's sensitivity to change is established before it is recommended in this context.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Health Promotion International
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0957-4824
                1460-2245
                May 20 2021
                May 20 2021
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
                Article
                10.1093/heapro/daab052
                b4f38bd2-4f41-4ce2-8784-60c7e59a479e
                © 2021

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article