Evaluation of the Quebec Healthy Enterprise Standard: Effect on Adverse Psychosocial Work Factors and Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse psychosocial work factors are recognized as a significant source of psychological distress, resulting in a considerable socioeconomic burden. The impact of occupational health standards that aim to reduce these adverse work factors, such as the Quebec Healthy Enterprise Standard (QHES), is of great interest for public health. The aim of this study was to evaluate, for the first time, the effect of QHES interventions targeting adverse psychosocial work factors on the prevalence of these factors and of psychological distress among ten Quebec organizations. These outcomes were assessed by questionnaire using validated instruments before (T1, n = 2849) and 2-3 years following (T2, n = 2560) QHES implementation. Beneficial effects of interventions were observed for two adverse psychosocial work factors: low rewards (ratio of prevalence ratios (PRs) = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.66-0.91) and low social support at work (ratio of PRs = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.77-1.03). Moreover, beneficial effects of interventions were also observed on the prevalence of high psychological distress (ratio of PRs = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.75-0.998). Psychosocial interventions implemented in the context of this standard improved the psychosocial work environment and had beneficial effects on workers' mental health.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".