These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Workplace Health Promotion in Small, Medium-Sized and Large Enterprises of the Health-Care Sector - Frequency, Reasons for the Company Management to Take Action and Barriers to Implementation].
    Author: Schaefer E, Drexler H, Kiesel J.
    Journal: Gesundheitswesen; 2016 Mar; 78(3):161-5. PubMed ID: 25704843.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gain insight into worksite health promotion in small and medium-sized companies compared to large concerns in Middle Franconia. Action in worksite health promotion, obstacles and demand for networks for workplace health promotion were determined. METHOD: A standardised telephone interview served for collecting data for this cross-sectional study. The interviewee was always the manager or their proxy. 106 companies were contacted. The results of this study were analysed via qualitative and quantitative methods in SPSS(®) 20. RESULTS: It was possible to reach and interview 80 companies, a return rate of 75.5%. More than half the companies (68.8%) implemented at least one activity for worksite health promotion, especially ergonomic measures and measures to promote physical activity. Taking the size of the company into consideration when analysing the results, previous study results are confirmed. With an increasing size of the company, the relative frequency of measures for workplace health promotion rises. The motivation for worksite health promotion ranges from keeping the employees healthy (38.2%) to worksite health promotion as part of the business culture (9.1%). 81.1% of the companies consider their activity in worksite health promotion to be successful. Furthermore, 80.0% of the firms that implemented worksite health promotion were supported by a partner like a health insurance (43.2%). Those companies that did not implement any activities for worksite health promotion, state as a prime reason that they did not think about it as yet (44.0%). Besides, 44.0% of the companies without any worksite health promotion would like to implement measures. 65.5% of the companies that already took action in worksite health promotion and 56.0% of the companies that did not would like to cooperate with other firms in a network for workplace health promotion. Mutual exchange is the most important factor for them. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that almost half of the companies that did not implement measures for worksite health promotion as yet would like to take action in this regard. For a bigger establishment of worksite health promotion, networks are predestinated and are best accompanied and supported by external professionals like health insurances, mutual indemnity associations or universities.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]