MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565135505 · doi:10.13075/mp.5893.00532

Workplace health promotion in Poland in 2015 – Diagnosis based on a representative survey of companies employing more than 50 employees

2016· article· en· W2565135505 on OpenAlexaff
Krzysztof Puchalski, Elżbieta Korzeniowska

Bibliographic record

VenueMedycyna Pracy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessWorkloadWork (physics)Health careEmployee benefitsPromotion (chess)IncentiveWorkplace health promotionProductivityMarketingPublic relationsHealth promotionNursingFinancePublic healthMedicineManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedycyna PracySame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207