MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954842755 · doi:10.17615/sbff-dv11

Workplace Health Promotion in Small Businesses: What is the Evidence and Is There a Role for State Health Agencies?

2019· article· en· W2954842755 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCarolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessHealth promotionState (computer science)Public relationsPublic healthMarketingPolitical scienceMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 established a $200 million grant program to help small businesses develop workplace health promotion programs. The ACA specified the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall establish guidelines for programs based on best-practices and scientific evidence. Compared to large businesses, where workplace health promotion has been more widely implemented and studied, small businesses face unique barriers and enablers. It is important that HHS develops program guidelines using small business-specific evidence. Methods: To inform guideline development, a systematic review of the literature on workplace health promotion in small businesses and a scan of state health agency activities were conducted. PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science (ISI), and Google Scholar were searched for evaluations of worksite health promotion interventions in small businesses in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe between 1982 and 2012. Articles that met inclusion criteria were evaluated to determine the extent to which interventions included program components required by the ACA, and to assess the quality of the literature. State health agency websites for each US state and Washington, DC, were examined to determine the scope of their workplace health promotion activities. Results: Of the 45 articles reviewed, sixteen met the criteria for inclusion. The health risk behaviors targeted were: physical activity and healthy eating (N=7), stress reduction (N=2), health screenings and follow-up medical evaluation (N=1), healthy eating only (N=2), physical activity only (N=2), and comprehensive programs with three or more behaviors (N=2). The majority of interventions used program components established by the ACA. Most programs produced some short-term changes in health risk behaviors, although most changes were modest. The quality of the literature was judged to be moderate overall, with few articles rated as strong. There appeared to be interest or expertise in the majority of state health agencies regarding WHP; at least eight states had experience with workplace health promotion in small businesses. Conclusions and Recommendations: The scientific literature on workplace health promotion in small businesses is limited and of moderate quality. Additional high quality evidence is needed to develop effective programs in small businesses. The Secretary of HHS should call on states with expertise for input on program guidelines, and should consider establishing an additional grant program for state health departments to evaluate the grant-funded programs in their states.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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