Health promotion at the workplace setting: A protocol for a systematic review of effectiveness and sustainability of current practice in low-income and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are experiencing a growing disease burden due to non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Changing behavioural practices, such as diets high in saturated fat, salt and sugar and sedentary lifestyles, have been associated with the increase in NCDs. Health promotion at the workplace setting is considered effective in the fight against NCDs and has been reported to yield numerous benefits. However, there is a need to generate evidence on the effectiveness and sustainability of workplace health promotion practice specific to LMICs. We aim to synthesise the current literature on workplace health promotion in LMICs focusing on interventions effectiveness and sustainability. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of published studies from LMICs up to 31 March 2019. We will search the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and CINAHL. Two reviewers will independently screen potential articles for inclusion and disagreements will be resolved by consensus. We will appraise the quality and risk of bias of included studies using two tools from the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. We will present a narrative overview and assessment of the body of evidence derived from the comprehensive review of the studies. The reported outcomes will be summarised by study design, duration, intensity/frequency of intervention delivery and by the six-priority health promotion action areas set out in the Ottawa Charter. We will conduct a thematic analysis to identify the focus areas of current interventions. This systematic review protocol has been prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta- analyses for Protocols 2015 statement. Ethics and dissemination This study does not require
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 | 0.182 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.014 |
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".