MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2002245566 · doi:10.1136/oem.2004.013193

HEALTH PROMOTION IN THE WORKPLACE: FRAMING THE CONCEPT; REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE

2004· article· en· W2002245566 sur OpenAlexaff
Martin Shain, Desré M. Kramer

Notice bibliographique

RevueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueWorkplace Health and Well-being
Établissements canadiensCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth promotionDeclarationFraming (construction)Public relationsEuropean unionPsychosocialWorkplace health promotionPublic healthSociologyPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceNursingLawBusinessEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

he term ''health promotion in the workplace'' is a multidimensional concept that embraces at least two major philosophies about what health is and how it is influenced.The first philosophy sees health as largely the product of individual behaviour and as an individual responsibility.It may acknowledge the role of genetics and environment to some degree, but the type of health promotion arising from this set of beliefs focuses on individual behaviour.Consequently, the workplace is seen primarily as a venue through which various programmes can be delivered.Examples of programme areas are: fitness, stress management, smoking cessation, back care, weight reduction/nutrition, medication.The second philosophy sees health as being influenced by a number of forces, a significant number of which are outside the individual's control.While acknowledging the individual's responsibility for his or her own health, this set of beliefs focuses on the role of the environment.Consequently, the workplace is seen as an influence on health in its own right.The attention here tends to be on the organisation and design of work in both its physical and psychosocial dimensions.Any workplace claiming to ''do'' health promotion can be characterised by the subscription of its senior managers to one or other of these philosophies or, more commonly, to some blend of the two.The 1997 Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union 1 is an interesting document in this regard because it presents a ''blended'' philosophy as the ideal.Yet studies using the Luxembourg Declaration as a framework for research have revealed that by far the more common philosophy followed by organisations claiming to practice health promotion is that of focusing on the individual as opposed to the environmental. 2 Be this as it may, it needs to be acknowledged that health, as we experience and observe it in the workplace, is produced or manufactured by two major forces: c What employees bring with them to the workplace in terms of personal resources, health practices, beliefs, attitudes, values, and hereditary endowment c What the workplace does to employees once they are there in terms of organisation of work in both the physical and psychosocial sense.In practice, these forces do not act independently; they interact. 3For example, certain management practices can make it difficult for employees to care for their own health-things like unscheduled overtime or travel requirements, excessive time and energy demands, and so forth.On the other hand, a workplace located in an area infamous for its heavy drinking practices can make life difficult for managers and supervisors as they struggle to prevent excessive or inappropriate alcohol use from translating into absenteeism, illness, and accidents.Nevertheless, this glaring dichotomy in the practical world of health promotion provides a useful point of departure for our analysis of the subject since it reflects to a large degree the organisation of the research literature in this area.Research, until recently, was focused more on the first force (''personal health practices'', for short) than on the second force (''organisation of work'', for short), so there is more literature on the first than the second.Moreover, in regard to the organisation of work, a substantial amount has been written on the effects of the physical environment of work in the context of occupational health and safety, but the literature on the important psychosocial aspects of the organisation of work is still in its infancy.The connection between the physical and psychosocial environments, and hence the term ''organisation of work'' that includes both, has been made by the fact that both are heavily influenced by high level management choices and decisions about how work will be organised.][6] Moreover, the physical and psychosocial aspects of the working environment (organisation of work) can influence the abilities of individuals to care for their own wellbeing and to maintain 643 www.occenvmed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,022
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,118

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0220,042
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0150,011
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,013
Communication savante0,0090,016
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0140,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,066
Tête enseignante GPT0,400
Écart entre enseignants0,334 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations292
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOccupational and Environmental MedicineMême sujetWorkplace Health and Well-beingTravaux en français237 207