How do management and non-management employees perceive workplace wellness programmes? A qualitative examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The value of workplace wellness programmes (WWPs) has been established in the literature. Such programmes, however, have an increased likelihood for success when both management and non-management employees’ perspectives and needs are incorporated into development and implementation. This study aimed to identify the perspectives of each of these two employee groups as a means of informing the future development and implementation of WWPs. Methods: Nine focus groups ( N = 56) were held in western Canada with participants employed at four diverse organisations consisting of >100 employees. Each participating organisation provided two separate groups, consisting of one management group and one non-management group. Participants were asked to share their perceptions, attitudes and beliefs concerning WWPs. Thematic inductive analysis was conducted to elicit emergent areas of focus. Results: Three areas of focus were identified: (1) role of the company in WWPs, (2) elements of successful WWPs and (3) mandatory participation in WWPs. Providing a clear indication of the roles and responsibilities of both employee groups, making these initiatives part of the organisational strategic plan, demonstrating a long term commitment to such programmes, and having employees play participatory roles in the design, implementation and decision making process, are components that need consideration. Conclusion: Both employee groups agreed that their organisation played a role in employee health. Similarities and discrepancies of the beliefs between groups are highlighted and key considerations are presented. Findings have implications for the future development and implementation of WWPs.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".