Implantation d’un « milieu de travail promoteur de santé » : compatibilité avec les pratiques organisationnelles d’un Centre Hospitalier Universitaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, a University Hospital in Quebec decided to implement the Health Promoting Hospital project (HPH). A study was conducted on the internal context of the HPH Project implementation, and more particularly on one of its dimensions, the “health promoting workplace”. Compatibility is an important factor of the internal context, but has been rarely studied. The objective of this paper is to examine whether there are any organizational practices compatible with those of a health promoting workplace for nurses. A questionnaire was administered, interviews were conducted with strategic actors and a document analysis was performed.The results show various levels of compatibility with the criteria of a health promoting workplace. Thus, compatibility was very high for criteria related to the development of a learning and efficient organization, the strategies to ensure a healthy and safe workplace, and healthy lifestyles. However, poor compatibility was observed for criteria related to the adoption of a health promotion policy and no compatibility was observed for nurses’ participation in the decision-making process.The study identified strengths and weaknesses in the “Health Promoting Workplace” Subproject implementation process. It also emphasized the importance of the adaptation of tools to local conditions. In this case, it is the WHO assessment tool for hospitals wishing to assess their health promotion practices and to stimulate their development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".