Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35996561›Full record

ArticleSocial theory & health : STH2022

The co-production of a workplace health promotion program: expected benefits, contested boundaries.

Paolo Rossi, Francesco Miele, Enrico Maria Piras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social theory & health : STH, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Paolo RossiDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano Bicocca, Via Bicocca Degli Arcimboldi 8, 20126 Milan, Italy.
Francesco MieleDepartment of Political and Social Sciences, University of Trieste, Piazzale Europa 1, 34127 Trieste, Italy.
Enrico Maria PirasFondazione Bruno Kessler, Via Sommarive 18, 38123 Trento, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Workplace health promotion (WHP) are often depicted as an opportunity for pursuing a better and broader well-being condition under the assumption that working environments affect the physical, mental, and social well-being of individuals who spend large proportion of waking hours at work. While most empirical studies provided medical evidence to the effectiveness of WHP programs, scholars question the instrumental purposes of these programs founded on the belief that "healthy workers are better workers". Little is known, for instance, about the design of WHP programs and their acceptance by workers. Our study addresses this gap, analyzing the co-production of a WHP program in an Italian research institute promoted by the healthcare authority, the local government and the national center for prevention and security in the workplaces. To this aim, we adopt the notion of boundary object investigate how different stakeholders reclaim to take part and being involved in this process, re-shaping their goals and their boundaries and why a WHP program or parts of it may be rejected or re-negotiated by its recipients. Our analysis reveals how each stakeholder contributes to re-shape the WHP program which emerges as the modular product of the composition of each matter of concern. Most notably, the strong rooting in a clinical perspective and the original focus on only workers at risk is gradually flanked by initiatives to involve all employees. Moreover, workers draw a line as for the legitimacy of employers' intervention in the personal sphere of health promotion, embracing interventions addressing diet and physical activity while rejecting measures targeting smoking and alcohol consumption.

Indexed as

Boundary objectsCo-productionWell-beingWorkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID35996561
PMCPMC9385082

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.