Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805779›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

A German Model Project for Workplace Health Promotion-Flow of Communication, Information, and Reasons for Non-Participation in the Offered Measures.

Regina Lutz, Wolfgang Fischmann, Hans Drexler, Elisabeth Nöhammer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. 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. The Potentials of Digital Workplace Health Promotion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  2. Exploring Transfer Potentials of the IMPROVEInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

4 authors.

Regina LutzInstitute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Henkestraße 9-11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0619-9914
Wolfgang FischmannInstitute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Henkestraße 9-11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Hans DrexlerInstitute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Henkestraße 9-11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Elisabeth NöhammerDepartment for Public Health, Health Services Research and HTA, UMIT-Private University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, 6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-527X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWorkplace health promotion (WHP) as a part of workplace health management (WHM) was strengthened in German legislature with the Prevention Act of 2015. However, smaller enterprises often do not offer WHM or WHP. Accordingly, a model-project for improving the uptake and implementation, particularly in micro-, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) was carried out. The aim of the study was to determine reasons for non-participation in WHP offers and analyze communication issues, both from the employee's and employer's perspective.

methodsIn total, 21 managers or persons responsible for WHP participated in the first online survey between March and April 2020, and 156 employees responded to the second online survey between June and October 2021. The importance of barriers and communication issues was investigated. Based on a principal component analysis on non-participation, differences regarding sociodemographic variables were analyzed.

resultsMost employees knew about the offered measures and that the measures were cost free. There was no significant association between having communicated the offers to the employees and considering them suitable for their needs. Most of the managers or persons responsible for WHP rated the measures as sufficiently varied and allowed staff to take part during working-time. Reasons for non-participation from the managers' point of view were travel time to the location of the offers, lack of time, and a missing fit between offers and employees' needs. From the employees' point of view, workload (including working time) was the main barrier to participation.

conclusionsFor the practical implementation of model projects in MSMEs, special attention should be paid to ensuring opportunity to participate, which may be easier with in-house offers.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthWorkplaceCommunicationHealth PromotionHumansSurveys and QuestionnairescommunicationdisseminationGermanyhealth promotioninformationmedium-sized businessesmicroenterprisesoccupational healthsmall businesses

Identifiers

PMID35805779
PMCPMC9265396

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.