How far are we from full implementation of health promoting workplace concepts? A review of implementation tools and frameworks in workplace interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health promoting workplace frameworks provide a holistic view on determinants of workplace health and the link between individuals, work and environment, however, the operationalization of these frameworks has not been very clear. This study provides a typology of the different understandings, frameworks/tools used in the workplace health promotion practice or research worldwide. It discusses the degree of their conformity with Ottawa Charter's spirit and the key actions expected to be implemented in health promoting settings such as workplaces. METHOD: A comprehensive online search was conducted utilizing relevant key words. The search also included official websites of related international, regional, and national organizations. After exclusion, 27 texts were analysed utilizing conventional content analyses. RESULTS: The results of the analysis were categorized as dimensions (level or main structure) of a healthy or health promoting workplaces and subcategorized characteristics/criteria of healthy/health promoting workplace. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows diversity and ambiguity in the workplace health literature regarding domains and characteristics of a healthy/health promoting workplace. This may have roots in lack of a common understanding of the concepts or different social and work environment context. Development of global or national health promoting workplace standards in a participatory process might be considered as a potential solution.
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 | 0.040 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".