Building Health Promotion into the Job of Home Care Aides: Transformation of the Workplace Health Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home care aides (HCAs), predominantly women, constitute one of the fastest growing occupations in the United States. HCAs work in clients’ homes that lack typical workplace resources and benefits. This mixed-methods study examined how HCAs’ work environment was transformed by a pilot workplace health promotion program that targeted clients as well as workers. The intervention started with training HCAs to deliver a gentle physical activity program to their older clients in a Medicaid-funded home care program. Older HCAs aged 50+ reported increased time doing the types of physical activity that they delivered to their clients (stretching or strengthening exercise) (p = 0.027). Almost all (98%) HCAs were satisfied with the program. These quantitative results were corroborated by qualitative data from open-ended survey questions and focus groups. HCAs described how they exercised with clients and how the psychosocial work environment changed with the program. Building physical activity into HCAs’ job is feasible and can effectively promote HCAs’ health, especially among older HCAs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".