ABSTRACT Aims and Objectives To evaluate the outcomes and acceptability of the Community‐based Participatory Occupational Well‐being Intervention for Educators. Methodological Design and Justification This pilot study used a sequential explanatory mixed‐method intervention study design in which the post‐intervention qualitative data were embedded in the quasi‐experimental pre‐test–post‐test data to explain and expand the intervention outcomes and to evaluate intervention acceptability. Ethical Issues and Approval This study received an ethical statement from the UEF Committee on Research Ethics (7/2021 15.4.2021) and followed the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Research Methods and Intervention The quantitative pre‐and post‐test data were collected using an electronic questionnaire among health care educators (intervention n = 19, comparison n = 22). The 1‐year intervention included (i) an online course, formation of (ii) an occupational well‐being development team, which (iii) planned and (iv) implemented community‐specific development actions. Qualitative interview data were collected from participants ( n = 9) 3 months post‐intervention. The quantitative data were analysed statistically and the qualitative data by deductive–inductive content analysis. The main results were merged into a joint display as mixed‐method meta‐inferences. Results Positive changes were found in occupational well‐being, promoting activities and workplace support. Educators experienced improvements in work organisation processes and reflection on occupational well‐being issues. The study found no significant change in the overall self‐assessed level of occupational well‐being. The intervention framework was considered functional, with workload issues as the main barriers. Study Limitations The main limitations of this study were a small sample size and a long intervention period, which challenged participant engagement and outcome evaluation. Conclusions The intervention enables community‐level occupational well‐being development, and it can be applied in health care educators' work communities. The study suggests refining the intervention in terms of information provision, time resources and community‐level orientation and discussion.
Vauhkonen et al. (Mon,) studied this question.