MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002245566 · doi:10.1136/oem.2004.013193

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueOccupational and Environmental Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionDeclarationFraming (construction)Public relationsEuropean unionPsychosocialWorkplace health promotionPublic healthSociologyPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceNursingLawBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations292
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOccupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207