ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2020
[The use of workplace health promotion interventions in Germany-results of the study "German Health Update" (GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS)].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Representative Analysis of Nonparticipation in Workplace Health Promotion in Germany Using Multivariable Methods.International journal of public health · 2024Article
- A workplace mindfulness training program may affect mindfulness, well-being, health literacy and work performance of upper-level ICT-managers: An exploratory study in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- How Managers Perceive and (Do Not) Participate in Health Promotion Measures-Results from a Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Survey in a Large ICT Company.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesWorkplace health promotion (WHP) interventions can reach a large part of the population. They are designed to improve work organisation and conditions and to promote the personal competencies of employees. Here the aim was to describe the use of WHP interventions based on individual factors and factors related to the size and branch of the companies. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the representative population-based study "German Health Update" (GEDA 2014/15-EHIS) conducted by the Robert Koch Institute, 14,389 employees aged between 18 and 64 years were asked about their knowledge and use of workplace measures in their companies during the last 12 months regarding back health, stress management/relaxation and a canteen with healthy food. In addition to socio-demographic factors, health awareness and self-rated health on the use of WHP interventions was analysed.
resultsA canteen with healthy food is used by 64.6% of women (F) and 66.2% of men (M); offers for back health (F: 26.2%; M: 18.7%) and stress/relaxation (F: 35.2%; M: 25.6%) are used significantly less. Employees with more pronounced health awareness use the offers more frequently than employees with a less pronounced awareness of health. Men with poor self-rated health make more use of offers for back health and stress/relaxation than men with good self-rated health.
conclusionsIn order to reach a larger part of the working population, WHP measures should take the needs of specific target groups into account including sex/gender and age aspects as well as the extent of employment, health awareness and self-rated health status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.