Health Promotion International, Vol. 18, No. 2, 115-126,
June 2003
© Oxford University Press 2003
Social context for workplace health promotion: feasibility considerations in Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden
1Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland, 2Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 3Bremen Institute for Prevention Research and Social Medicine, Bremen, Germany, 10Service for Occupational Medicine and Workplace Health Promotion, Hamburg, Germany, 4Department of Health, Municipality of Sabadell, Sabadell, Spain, 7Directorate General for Occupational Health, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 8Municipal Institute for Medical Research, Barcelona, Spain, 9National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene, Barcelona, Spain, 5Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica and 6Technological University of Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica
Address for correspondence: Päivi Peltomäki, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH), Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Topeliuksenkatu 41 A a, FIN-00250 Helsinki, Finland, E-mail: paivi.peltomaki{at}ttl.fi
We constructed a simple, flexible procedure that facilitates the pre-assessment of feasibility of workplace health promotion (WHP) programmes. It evaluates cancer hazards, workers’ need for hazard reduction, acceptability of WHP, and social context. It was tested and applied in 16 workplace communities and among 1085 employees in industry, construction, transport, services, teaching and municipal works in Costa Rica, Finland, Germany, Spain and Sweden. Social context is inseparable from WHP. It covers workers’ organizations and representatives, management, safety committees, occupational health services, health and safety enforcement agencies, general health services, non-government organizations, insurance systems, academic and other institutions, regulatory stipulations pertaining WHP, and material resources. Priorities, risk definitions, attitudes, hazard profiles, motivations and assessment methods were highly contextual. Management preferred passive interventions, helping cover expert costs, participating in planning and granting time. Trade unions, workers’ representatives, safety committees and occupational health services appeared to be important operational partners. Occupational health services may however be loaded with curative and screening functions or be non-existent. We advocate participatory, multifaceted WHP based on the needs and empowerment of the workers themselves, integrating occupational and lifestyle hazards. Workforce in irregular and shift work, in agriculture, in small enterprises, in the informal sector, and immigrant, seasonal and temporary workers represent groups in need of particular strategies such as community health promotion. In a more general framework, social context itself may become a target for intervention.
Key words: feasibility; participation; social context; workplace health promotion
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. K. Yancey, L. B. Lewis, J. J. Guinyard, D. C. Sloane, L. M. Nascimento, L. Galloway-Gilliam, A. L. Diamant, and W. J. McCarthy Putting Promotion Into Practice: The African Americans Building a Legacy of Health Organizational Wellness Program Health Promot Pract, July 1, 2006; 7(3_suppl): 233S - 246S. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Arneson and K. Ekberg Evaluation of empowerment processes in a workplace health promotion intervention based on learning in Sweden Health Promot. Int., December 1, 2005; 20(4): 351 - 359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|