Integrating Safety and Health Promotion in Workplaces: A Scoping Review of Facilitators, Barriers, and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence supports the integration and coordination of occupational health and safety and workplace health promotion activities instead of these coexisting as siloed efforts. Identifying implementation challenges and how these can be overcome is an important step to achieving truly integrated worker health efforts. We conducted a scoping review to identify the barriers and facilitators to integrated worker health approaches and described recommendations for implementing these efforts. METHOD: Peer-reviewed articles and gray literature from 2008 to 2019 were searched from the following electronic databases: EMBASE, Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, and ABI/INFORM. References from relevant articles and key informant suggestions also were collected. Data were extracted from documents if they focused on the occupational health and safety and health promotion of workers and described outcomes associated with integrated worker health approaches or outlined considerations relevant to the implementation of these approaches. RESULTS: Fifty-one documents met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Barriers and facilitators to implementing integrated worker health approaches were found at the extraorganizational, organizational, worker, and program levels, with limited resource availability the most reported barrier and support from leadership the most reported facilitator. Ten broad recommendations were identified and highlighted gaining leadership support, demonstrating leadership commitment, developing worker-centric approaches, and building capacity for workers. CONCLUSION: In reviewing the literature, we found clear and consistent recommendations relevant for integrated worker health approaches. Further research is needed to better understand how these recommendations apply to diverse workforces and organizations with varied resources.
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 | 0.062 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".