lated into a simple, low-cost intervention that could be used
in a variety of work settings, including those with limited
health and wellness resources. The intervention used a combination of occupational health nurses and peer health
coaches to implement the translated DPP. Compared to
control worksites, participants in the intervention sites
maintained their weight (M. G. Wilson, DeJoy, Vandenberg, Padilla, & Davis, 2016). Data from this project suggested that peer health coaches were underutilized and that
employees were not comfortable talking with their peers
about personal health issues.
Building on these findings, the WHG tested a second
translation of the DPP that included intensive health coaching facilitated by trained WHG staff. Worksites were randomized into one of three conditions: (a) telephone health
coaching, (b) small groups facilitated by a health coach, and
(c) self-study (comparison condition). Those in the phone
condition lost significantly more weight than did those in
either the group condition or self-study condition (M. G.
Wilson, DeJoy, Vandenberg, Corso, et al., 2016). Translation and intervention implementation in worksites requires
consideration of implementation costs, cost-effectiveness,
and return on investment. To capture economic aspects of
translation and implementation of programs in the worksite,
the group recruited an SME with expertise in economic
evaluation. A detailed costs analysis found that the phone
condition was costlier than the group and self-study condition (Ingels et al., 2016). Additionally, group coaching was
not cost-effective relative to the self-study condition (Corso
et al., 2018). In a more recent translation project, the WHG
worked with the original developers of the Chronic Disease
Self-Management Program (CDSMP) at Stanford University. The research team created a workplace version of the
program, and preliminary findings (the project is ongoing)
have shown positive results for a number of relevant outcomes (e.g., fatigue, physical activity) compared to the
traditional CDSMP (M. L. Smith et al., 2018).
As others have reported, one of the larger challenges in
translating programs from clinic and community settings to
worksites is balancing program fidelity and adaptation
(Backer, 2001). Modifications to key intervention components ( i.e., local adaptations) must be possible but not so
extensive as to dilute or destroy intervention efficacy (K. M.
Wilson, Brady, Lesesne, & NCCDPHP Work Group on
Translation, 2011). The WHG has improved in this area
over time. Whereas earlier projects weighted the fidelity-adaptation balance perhaps too far toward adaptation, the
more recent translation efforts have increased the fidelity of
the translation process. This change has resulted in more
effective interventions in terms of expected outcomes
(Blakely et al., 1987).
These research translation projects have relied on the
intervention expertise of the fourth author, the behavior
theory expertise of the third author, the methodological
expertise of the second author, the experience in coordina-
tion and intervention implementation of the fifth and sixth
authors, data management and analysis by the first and last
authors, and the contribution of SMEs. These projects
would not be possible without the unique contributions of
the entire team.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations for
A number of lessons have been learned over the last 20
years. Unlike Table 1, what follows are general recommendations that are not necessarily specific to any stage but
provide guidance to those starting up multidisciplinary,
functionally diverse labs or workgroups.
1. Develop a primary vision, mission, and goal. Key
to the success of any multidisciplinary team is
collective identification through a shared mission,
vision, and goal (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson,
2005). The vision for the WHG has always been
promoting better health and safety in the workplace. Practically, all decisions within the group
return to asking, “How well is what we are deciding facilitating completing our vision?” For example, the WHG ignores calls for grant proposals that
do not have a clear link to promoting better health,
safety, and effectiveness in the workplace. Not
only will a clear vision, mission, and goal provide
a helpful decision-making anchor for the group but,
as outlined in the Storming the WHG section, this
common mission can help unite the team and buffer the negative effects of functional diversity on
social integration and performance.
2. Prepare for conflict via teamwork training and
development. Conflict will arise on any team.
However, as has been illustrated in the WHG experience and the teams research literature, multidisciplinary teams increase the probability of interpersonal conflict. A helpful way to prepare for
conflict and challenges is through teamwork building and training. There are several types of effective team building and training interventions available, and the choice depends on the team’s goal for
the training. Two types of team-building activities
the authors would recommend to all new multidisciplinary teams are discipline-specific information
sharing (e.g., foundational concepts, typical methodologies) and interpersonal conflict management
training. The information sharing should be done
on a consistent and systematic basis over time (see
Slatin et al., 2004). Interpersonal conflict management is important in all teams but particularly so in
multidisciplinary teams (e.g., Johnson et al., 2018).
390 HAYNES ET AL.