Eickhoff-Shemek J M, Ryan K F
School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, University of Nebraska at Omaha, NE 68182-0216, USA.
Am J Health Promot. 1995 Nov-Dec;10(2):132-9. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.2.132.
The purpose of this study was to compare the results from a survey of Omaha worksite health promotion activities with the results of a 1992 national survey. Comparisons were made on: (1) the kinds of health promotion activities offered, (2) progress toward the Healthy People 2000 worksite objectives, (3) types of program intervention offered, and (4) administrative factors.
A one-time, written, mail-out/mail-back survey design was used.
The study took place in Omaha, Nebraska.
All area public and private worksites with 250 or more employees were sent surveys. Individuals who were preselected and identified as the best qualified within the company completed the survey instrument. Of the 176 worksites surveyed, 86 completed the survey (49%).
Descriptive statistics (percentages) were used to compare the two surveys on kinds of programs offered, progress toward Healthy People 2000 related to worksite health promotion, the types of program intervention offered, and administrative factors.
Generally, a greater percentage of respondent worksites from the national survey are offering more health promotion activities and have made more progress toward the Healthy People 2000 worksite objectives than the Omaha worksites. Results from both surveys showed that low levels of intervention are more prevalent than high levels of intervention, and that health promotion activities in most worksites are coordinated by human resources departments and not by someone professionally prepared in health education.
Traditionally, major goals of worksite health promotion programs have focused on important organizational outcomes such as improved productivity/morale, reduction in absenteeism, and health care cost-containment. It is important to recognize, however, that low levels of intervention have less impact than more intensive programs on these desired outcomes. Future goals for local and national worksite health promotion programs may need to encourage implementation of more intensive intervention programs.
本研究旨在比较奥马哈工作场所健康促进活动调查结果与1992年全国调查结果。比较内容包括:(1)提供的健康促进活动种类;(2)在实现《2000年美国人健康目标》工作场所目标方面的进展;(3)提供的项目干预类型;(4)管理因素。
采用一次性书面邮寄/回寄调查设计。
研究在 Nebraska州奥马哈市进行。
向所有拥有250名及以上员工的地区公共和私人工作场所发送调查问卷。预先选定并被确定为公司内最合格的个人填写调查问卷。在176个接受调查的工作场所中,86个完成了调查(49%)。
使用描述性统计(百分比)来比较两项调查在提供的项目种类、与工作场所健康促进相关的《2000年美国人健康目标》进展、提供的项目干预类型以及管理因素方面的情况。
总体而言,全国调查中回复的工作场所比奥马哈的工作场所提供了更多的健康促进活动,并且在实现《2000年美国人健康目标》工作场所目标方面取得了更大进展。两项调查结果均显示,低水平干预比高水平干预更为普遍,并且大多数工作场所的健康促进活动由人力资源部门协调,而非由健康教育方面的专业人员负责。
传统上,工作场所健康促进项目的主要目标集中在重要的组织成果上,如提高生产力/士气、减少旷工以及控制医疗保健成本。然而,重要的是要认识到,低水平干预对这些预期成果的影响小于更密集的项目。地方和全国工作场所健康促进项目的未来目标可能需要鼓励实施更密集的干预项目。