Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25977703›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2015

The legislative backgrounds of workplace health promotion in three European countries: a comparative analysis.

Rasa Šidagytė, Maija Eglīte, Anne Salmi, Dovilė Šorytė, Ivars Vanadziņš, Leila Hopsu, Jaana Lerssi-Uskelin, Laima Bulotaitė, Lāsma Kozlova, Svetlana Lakiša and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A Cross-Sectional Study of the Awareness and Implementation of theCanadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rasa ŠidagytėOccupational Health Centre, Institute of Hygiene, Didžioji str. 22, Vilnius, Lithuana.
Maija EglīteDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
Anne SalmiFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Aapistie 1, Oulu, Finland.
Dovilė ŠorytėOccupational Health Centre, Institute of Hygiene, Didžioji str. 22, Vilnius, Lithuana.
Ivars VanadziņšInstitute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
Leila HopsuFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, Finland.
Jaana Lerssi-UskelinFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, Finland.
Laima BulotaitėDepartment of General Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, Vilnius University, Universiteto str. 9/1, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Lāsma KozlovaInstitute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
Svetlana LakišaInstitute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health of Riga Stradins University, Dzirciema str. 16, Riga, Latvia.
Sigita VičaitėOccupational Health Centre, Institute of Hygiene, Didžioji str. 22, Vilnius, Lithuana ; Positive Health Team, Šviesos str. 4B-7, Vilnius, Lithuania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation.

methodsIn November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size.

resultsOnly Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements.

conclusionsFinland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.

Indexed as

EnterpriseLegislationOccupational healthWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID25977703
PMCPMC4430926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.