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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".