從主管及推動者觀點探討臺北市健康職場認證與職場健康促進品質之相關研究

The Approach to Investigate the Factors Associated with Badge of Accredited Healthy Workplace and Quality of Workplace Health Promotion from the Employers and Promoters’ Point of View in Taipei City

劉佳蕓(Liu Chia-Yun)

指導教授 ： 董貞吟

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/健康促進與衛生教育學系/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/THE.NTNU.DHPHE.029.2018.F02

摘要

本研究目的旨在從主管及推動者觀點探討職場健康促進品質現況，並分析認證與否、職場規模等不同職場特性是否影響職場健康促進品質，進而暸解主管和推動者對職場健康促進之推動效益和障礙。以臺北市104年度「健康促進認證」標章有效期限內職場之主管及推動者為研究母群體，採分層隨機抽樣分作大、中、小職場之事業單位主管及推動者進行問卷調查，共取得有效問卷158份，並進一步探討更多影響職場推行健康促進之其他重要因素，以立意取樣方式，招募主管6人及推動者10位成員，另舉行焦點團體訪談。以SPSS 22.0 統計軟體進行問卷信、效度分析、描述性統計、推論性統計分析（t檢定、單因子變異數分析及其scheffe事後檢定、線性迴歸分析）。本研究結果主要發現：
(一) 主管和推動者在健康促進品質中，平均最高分皆為「人力組織」，平均最低分皆為「結果評價」。
(二) 大型職場在「政策」、「計畫規劃」、「社會責任」、「計畫執行」得分顯著皆優於中小型職場；而認證組在「政策」、「人力組織」、「計畫規劃」、「計畫執行」皆顯著優於非認證組職場。
(三) 無論職場規模，在主管觀點，認證組在「政策」、「人力組織」、「計畫執行」方面較非認證組正向；在推動者觀點，認證組與非認證組間皆無顯著差異。
(四) 在認證組中，除了「政策」以外，主管在健康促進品質指標得分皆顯著高於推動者；在非認證組中，主管僅在「社會責任」顯著優於推動者。
(五) 在主管訪談中，代表認證組與非認證組之主管有截然不同的意見及經驗，對於日後推動的意願及看法普遍也不一致；相較於推動者，受訪者表達諸多在推動及執行上所遭遇到的困難和障礙，及各種職場中資源使用的不易，但仍在現有資源上努力推動各類型健康促進計畫。
(六) 建議可持續推動健康職場認證，由大型職場推廣永續夥伴關係，以及強化主管及推動者共識，未來可進一步探討職場健康促進之重要關係人之觀點，以探討職場發展健康促進更多層面及相關部門的影響及需求。

關鍵字

職場健康促進品質 ； 健康職場認證 ； 主管 ； 推動者

並列摘要

The purpose of the study was to assess the health promotion quality among different worksites characteristic from employers and promoters’point of view, and to examine the health promotion quality consistency between employers and promoters.

The research population based on”the employers and promoters of Workplace which have the certification of health promotion”, the questionnaires that assigh large size workplace and small size workplace by using the stratified random sampling.
Exploring more about the other important factors of health promotion through by focus group interview from purposively sampling.We used SPSS 22.0 to test the reliability and validity of questionnaires, and to conduct descriptive and inferential statistics(including t test, one way ANOVA with scheffe Post Hoc Test, and linear regression model analysis.)
The results of this study are summarized as following:

1. Among The employers and promoters of quality in health promotion, the highest score of average was "human organization", while the lowest score of average was "results of the evaluation."
2. In large size workplace significantly higher than small workplace of "policy", "planning", "social responsibility", " implementation"significant differences; certification group significantly higher than non-certified group of "policy", "human resources "" planning "," implementation ".
3. In the points of employers, regardless of the size of the workplace, certification group significantly higher than non-certified group of "policy", "human resources", "implementation"; in the points of promoters, regardless of the size of the workplace, between certified groups certified and non-certified group are non significant differences.
4. In certification group, employer’s indicators scores were significantly higher than promoter; in non-certified group, the "social responsibility" significant differences between the employer and promoter.
5. The interview of employer, there was totally diffrerent opinions and experience between the certified group and the non-certified group, they also have some inconsistent view on promotion for the further; compared to the promoter, the respondent indicated they face the barrier and hardness on promotion and implement, including it’s difficult to obtain the resourses, but they still try to implement health promotion plan with the available resourse.
6. The workplace of large size should playing a partnership leader, and the employer and promoter must bulid a consensus and strengthen cooperation to advance the Promtoing workplace health promotion certificate continuely.

並列關鍵字

Badge of Accredited Healthy Workplace ； Quality of Workplace Health Promotion ； Employers ； Promoters

參考文獻

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(3), 243-253.

Becker, C., Whetstone, L., Glascoff, M., & Moore, J. B. (2008). Evaluation of the reliability and validity of an adult version of the salutogenic wellness promotion scale (SWPS). American Journal of Health Education, 39(6), 322-328.

Braun, T., Bambra, C., Booth, M., Adetayo, K., & Milne, E. (2015). Better health at work? An evaluation of the effects and cost-benefits of a structured workplace health improvement programme in reducing sickness absence. Journal Of Public Health (Oxford, England), 37(1), 138-142. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdu043

Brewer, P. C., Gallo, A., & Smith, M. R. (2010). Getting fit with corporate wellness programs. Strategic Finance, 91(11), 27-34.

Briggs, A., Sculpher, M., & Claxton, K. (2006). Decision modelling for health economic evaluation: OUP Oxford.