Workplace Health Promotion in Small Businesses: What is the Evidence and Is There a Role for State Health Agencies?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 established a $200 million grant program to help small businesses develop workplace health promotion programs. The ACA specified the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall establish guidelines for programs based on best-practices and scientific evidence. Compared to large businesses, where workplace health promotion has been more widely implemented and studied, small businesses face unique barriers and enablers. It is important that HHS develops program guidelines using small business-specific evidence. Methods: To inform guideline development, a systematic review of the literature on workplace health promotion in small businesses and a scan of state health agency activities were conducted. PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science (ISI), and Google Scholar were searched for evaluations of worksite health promotion interventions in small businesses in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe between 1982 and 2012. Articles that met inclusion criteria were evaluated to determine the extent to which interventions included program components required by the ACA, and to assess the quality of the literature. State health agency websites for each US state and Washington, DC, were examined to determine the scope of their workplace health promotion activities. Results: Of the 45 articles reviewed, sixteen met the criteria for inclusion. The health risk behaviors targeted were: physical activity and healthy eating (N=7), stress reduction (N=2), health screenings and follow-up medical evaluation (N=1), healthy eating only (N=2), physical activity only (N=2), and comprehensive programs with three or more behaviors (N=2). The majority of interventions used program components established by the ACA. Most programs produced some short-term changes in health risk behaviors, although most changes were modest. The quality of the literature was judged to be moderate overall, with few articles rated as strong. There appeared to be interest or expertise in the majority of state health agencies regarding WHP; at least eight states had experience with workplace health promotion in small businesses. Conclusions and Recommendations: The scientific literature on workplace health promotion in small businesses is limited and of moderate quality. Additional high quality evidence is needed to develop effective programs in small businesses. The Secretary of HHS should call on states with expertise for input on program guidelines, and should consider establishing an additional grant program for state health departments to evaluate the grant-funded programs in their states.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,054 | 0,217 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».