Research on workplace health promotion in the Nordic countries: a literature review, 1986–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace health promotion may include approaches focusing on behavioral change among employees and approaches with a holistic system-oriented thinking aiming at changing the physical, social and organizational factors of a setting. This literature review aimed to identify studies on workplace health promotion in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), to describe when, where and how the studies were performed and to further analyze the use of settings approaches and empowerment processes. Using scientific literature databases, we found 1809 hits when searching for Nordic studies published from 1986 to 2008 with the search term health promotion. Of these, 116 studies were related to workplace health promotion and 33 included interventions. We used content analysis to analyze the abstracts of all articles and the full articles of the intervention studies. Most studies were performed in Sweden and Finland. The focus was mainly on behavioral change rather than on holistic health promotion as defined by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. This was especially obvious for the intervention studies. In addition to the intervention studies using non-settings approaches with top-down driven behavioral change, we identified studies with participatory settings approaches aimed at changing the setting. We categorized relatively few studies as having a non-participatory settings approach. The studies aiming specifically at improving employees' empowerment were evenly distributed between the categories market-oriented persuasion of empowerment, therapeutic empowerment and empowerment as a liberal management strategy. More studies on workplace health promotion using empowering and participatory settings approaches are needed in the Nordic countries, and a more theory-based approach towards this research field is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".