Exploring workplace related health resources from a salutogenic perspective: Results from a focus group study among healthcare workers in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare workers' opinions on workplace related health resources relevant to promotion of their health. PARTICIPANTS: 16 registered nurses and 19 assistant nurses, from a medical emergency ward at a medium sized hospital in the south of Sweden, participated in the study. METHODS: Eight focus group interviews were conducted, the material was condensed and conventional qualitative content analysis was used to elicit and identify patterns in the expressed opinions of the participants. RESULTS: The analysis yielded four themes that were labelled the reward, the team, the mission and the context. An explanatory model was constructed consisting of concentric circles, with the reward at the core. The qualitative analysis also revealed two divergent patterns; some of the participants associated positive health with stability while others referred to flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study have contributed to the body of knowledge regarding salutogenic health indicators in the field of work and health research in particular as well as in health promotion in general. The findings show that individuals can have diverse responses to any given work situation, and this should be taken into account before implementation of salutogenic health promotion programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".