Obstacles to the development of workplace health promotion in Poland – the perspective of companies’ representatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the paper is to present the barriers and difficulties faced by companies in Poland in their employee health promotion activities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aforementioned obstacles were analyzed in terms of their quantity and quality. Quantitative data come from 5 nationwide surveys conducted in 2000 (N = 755), 2006 (N = 611), 2010 (N = 1002), 2015 (N = 1000) and 2017 (N = 1000), in companies employing ≥50 people. Qualitative data were collected from representatives of such companies by means of an audience survey conducted during a conference (N = 75), 8 focus group interviews (N = 64) and individual in-depth interviews (N = 14). RESULTS: Invariably, the most frequently reported difficulty has been the shortage of financial resources for health promotion, as well as the lack of real support (legal, fiscal) from the government. By 2017, the former was indicated by 53% of companies, and the latter by 48%. A detailed analysis has shown that they are interrelated, and the key barrier is the mentality of employers and managers, i.e., their reluctance to health promotion, the fact that they are convinced of its high costs, a poor knowledge about its importance and implementation methods, and fear of the unknown. Other difficulties include: culture and work organization not fostering health care, a poor preparation and limited opportunities for the staff to implement health promotion, employees' reluctance to employer's health-related activities, some drawbacks of offers addressed to companies by external service providers, and, to a lesser extent, other difficulties arising from the business environment. CONCLUSIONS: To effectively mitigate these barriers, it is necessary to involve the government in the implementation of a coherent strategy to support health promotion in companies. Its main directions would be: shaping employers' awareness, supporting health-related activities through fiscal mechanisms (tax and insurance), educating the managerial staff, and pursuing effective cooperation with external providers of health services for employees. Med Pr. 2020;71(5):569-86.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".