Stakeholder collaboration in improving integrated basic occupational in health services supply chain in community health center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to describe the collaboration of stakeholder roles and analyzes the influence of government, Micro & Small businesses and workers to improve the performance of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) officers in community health center. The study is a survey with a cross-sectional design to measure the influence of stakeholders' role on the performance of occupational health efforts. The study sample was 80 people, namely all OHS officers from the community health center (CHC) in the city of Medan. The independent variables in this study are the role of government (X1), the role of micro and small business (X2), the role of the workers (X3) and the performance of OHS officers is the dependent variable. Data collection is perfomed using a questionnaire that has been validated with interval scales 1 - 5. Hypothesis testing is based on using structural equation modeling path analysis and analysis is performed using PLS-SEM, Smart PLS 3.0. Direct test results show that the government has not played a significant role in Micro & Small Business and the role of workers. The government only plays a significant role in the performance of OHS officers. Micro & Small businesses significantly influence workers' role, but it has not significantly affected OHS officers' performance. The role of workers significantly influences the performance of OHS officers. Test results indirectly show the critical role of collaboration between stakeholders. Although it has not shown a significant effect, there is an increase in the significant value on the performance of officers. The finding confirms the need for seriousness and the importance of collaboration among stakeholders. The research needs to be expanded by involving all OHS officers up to sub-health centers, and other districts/cities with the same characteristics. The study has only investigated at community health center. Policy recommendations are given for managing an integrated occupational health service program in community health center involving all stakeholders in Medan.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".