Workplace health promotion in Poland in 2015 – Diagnosis based on a representative survey of companies employing more than 50 employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The workplace health promotion (WHP) activity of enterprises in Poland was examined. The findings referred to how many companies implemented non-obligatory actions for health and what actions were taken, what were the reasons and obstacles in the implementation, whether companies evaluated their activity, how they motivated staff to WHP, and whether the size and economic standing differentiated their activity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Representative survey, consisted of computer assisted telephone interviews with delegates of the boards of 1000 companies employing > 50 employees, held in November-December 2015. RESULTS: Every second company undertook voluntary actions for workers health. Most often they offered medical care, supported physical activity and took care about the work environment in a higher range than required by binding regulations. They promoted health to build company's good image, improve productivity and reduce costs. The tradition of WHP in the company, attitudes of employers and intention to boost the vitality of employees also played a role . Despite good financial standing of companies, the shortage of funds was the main barrier in the implementation of WHP activities. Other impediments, such as lack of sufficient state incentives, workload of the management staff, lack of knowledge about WHP benefits and lack of good pro-health services were observed as well. Few companies motivated employees to WHP and carried out its evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The development of WHP requires dissemination of its benefits among employers, human resources and safety personnel trainings in WHP management, implementation of the system of relief and prestigious awards for active companies, increase in the number and scope of research works on WHP conditions and effectiveness. Crucial herein is the role of the state in cooperation with other major WHP actors. Med Pr 2017;68(2):229-246.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".