Effect of Workplace Counseling Interventions Launched by Workplace Health Promotion and Tobacco Control Centers in Taiwan: An Evaluation Based on the Ottawa Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace health promotion (WHP) is important to prevent work-related diseases, reduce workplace hazards, and improve personal health of the workers. Health promotion projects were launched through the centers of WHP funded by the Taiwan Bureau of Health Promotion since 2003. Hence, the aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of WHP programs intervention from 2003 to 2007. The intervention group consisted of 838 business entities which had ever undergone counseling of the three centers in northern, central, and southern Taiwan from 2003 to 2007. The control group was composed of 1000 business entities randomly selected from the business directories of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan. The questionnaire survey included general company profiles and the assessment of workplace health according to the five action areas of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. We have received 447 (53.3%) questionnaires from the intervention group and 97 questionnaires from the control group. The intervention group was more effective in using the external resources and medical consultation, and they had better follow-up rates of the abnormal results of annual health examinations. Compared to the control group, the intervention group had a significantly decreased smoking rate in 246 companies (61.2%) and a reduced second-hand smoke exposure in 323 companies (78.6%) (p<0.001). By means of the intervention of WHP programs, we can enhance the awareness of the enterprises and the employees to improve worksite health and to create a healthy work environment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".