簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 劉佳蕓
Liu, Chia-Yun
論文名稱: 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
指導教授: 董貞吟
Tung, Chen-Yin
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 健康促進與衛生教育學系
Department of Health Promotion and Health Education
論文出版年: 2018
畢業學年度: 106
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 206
中文關鍵詞: 職場健康促進品質健康職場認證主管推動者
英文關鍵詞: Badge of Accredited Healthy Workplace, Quality of Workplace Health Promotion, Employers, Promoters
DOI URL: http://doi.org/10.6345/THE.NTNU.DHPHE.029.2018.F02
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:187下載:46
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 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。

    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.

    第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與重要性 1 第二節 研究目的 6 第三節 研究問題 7 第四節 研究假設 8 第五節 名詞解釋 9 第六節 研究限制 10 第二章 文獻探討 11 第一節 職場健康促進概念與發展 11 第二節 健康職場認證發展趨勢 21 第三節 職場健康促進品質的概念及相關成效評價 26 第四節 影響推動職場健康促進之相關研究 31 第三章 研究方法 36 第一節 研究設計 36 第二節 研究架構 37 第三節 研究對象 39 第四節 研究工具 42 第五節 研究步驟 58 第六節 資料處理及分析 62 第四章 結果與討論 65 第一節 研究對象人口基本變項分佈情形 65 第二節 研究對象職場健康促進品質觀點現況 71 第三節 研究對象不同人口學變項在職場健康促進品質觀點之差異 80 第四節 研究對象在不同職場特性對職場健康促進品質觀點的現況和差異 101 第五節 不同人口學變項及職場特性與健康促進品質之相關性 131 第六節 主管與推動者在推動職場健康促進品質觀點之一致性 139 第七節 職場健康促進品質認知與執行現況 141 第五章 結論與建議 186 第一節 結論 186 第二節 建議 191 參考文獻 195 附錄一 主管問卷 201 附錄二 推動者問卷 204

    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.
    Coulter, C. H. (2006). The employer's case for health management. Benefits quarterly, 22(1), 23.
    Crisp, B. R., Swerissen, H., & Duckett, S. J. (2000). Four approaches to capacity building in health: consequences for measurement and accountability. Health Promotion International, 15(2), 99-107.
    Downey, A. M., & Sharp, D. J. (2007). Why do managers allocate resources to workplace health promotion programmes in countries with national health coverage? Health Promotion International, 22(2), 102-111.
    European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (1999).healthy employees in healthy organisations.Retrieves from BKK Bundesverband
    Flynn, P., Goth, G., Pot, F., & Breucker, G. (1999). Healthy Employees in Healthy Organisations. Retrieved from http://www.enwhp.org/fileadmin/downloads/conference_01.pdf
    Glasgow, R. E., McCaul, K. D., & Fisher, K. J. (1993). Participation in worksite health promotion: a critique of the literature and recommendations for future practice. Health Education & Behavior, 20(3), 391-408.
    Goetzel, R. Z., & Ozminkowski, R. J. (2008). The health and cost benefits of work site health-promotion programs. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 303-323.
    Hannon, P. A., Hammerback, K., Garson, G., Harris, J. R., & Sopher, C. J. (2012). Stakeholder Perspectives on Workplace Health Promotion: A Qualitative Study of Midsized Employers in Low-Wage Industries. American Journal of Health Promotion, 27(2), 103-110. doi:10.4278/ajhp.110204-QUAL-51
    Hassard, J., Wang, D., Cox, T., Muyalert, T., & Flaspöler, E. (2012). Motivation for employers to carry out workplace health promotion. Luxemburg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Geraadpleegd van, 10, 50267.
    Heaney, C. A., & Goetzel, R. Z. (1997). A review of health-related outcomes of multi-component worksite health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(4), 290-307.
    Larsson, R., Stier, J., Åkerlind, I., & Sandmark, H. (2015). Implementing health-promoting leadership in municipal organizations: managers' experiences with a leadership program. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 5(1), 93.
    Liau, S.-Y., Hassali, M.-A. A., Shafie, A. A., & Ibrahim, M.-I. M. (2014). Assessing quality of a worksite health promotion programme from participants' views: findings from a qualitative study in Malaysia. Health Expectations, 17(1), 116-128. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00742.x
    Linnan, L., Bowling, M., Childress, J., Lindsay, G., Blakey, C., Pronk, S., . . . Royall, P. (2008). Results of the 2004 national worksite health promotion survey. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1503-1509.
    Lusa, S., Saarinen, K., & Louhevaara, V. (2005). Method to evaluate the quality of work place health promotion in security organisations. Paper presented at the International Congress Series.
    McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15(4), 351-377.
    Muylaert, K., De Beeck, R. O., & Van den Broek, K. (2007). Company Health Check: an instrument to promote health at the workplace. Review Paper and Catalogue of Quality Criteria. ENWHP–Move Europe, 10.
    Pescud, M., Teal, R., Shilton, T., Slevin, T., Ledger, M., Waterworth, P., & Rosenberg, M. (2015). Employers' views on the promotion of workplace health and wellbeing: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2029-2
    Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research. FA Davis Company.
    Whitehead, D. (2006). Workplace health promotion: the role and responsibility of health care managers. Journal of Nursing Management, 14(1), 59-68. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00599.x
    World health Organization (2010). Healthy workplaces: a model for action: for employers, workers, policy-makers and practitioners.
    WHO. (1999). Regional guidelines for the development of healthy workplaces: World Health Organization, Regional Office for the Western Pacific.
    Yusri, Y., & Amran, A. (2012). CSR Towards Workplace and Human Resource Disclosure: Employees' Perspectives. Malaysian Accounting Review, 11(2), 39-68.
    周雅容. (1997). 焦點團體法在調查研究上的應用. 調查研究, 第三期, 52-72.
    張蓓貞. (2014). 台灣職業衛生護理現況政策與趨勢. [Taiwan Occupational Health Nursing: Practices, Policies and Future Trends]. 護理雜誌, 61(3), 29-35. doi:10.6224/jn.61.3.29
    張靜雲, 張秉庠, 黃照, 王雪月, 江燕玲, 白瑞聰, &趙櫻花. (2014). 雲端職場壓力管理創新服務模式之研究. [An Innovative Model to Deal with Stress Management in the Workplace Using Cloud Technology]. 醫務管理期刊, 15(2), 166-187. doi:10.6174/jhm2014.15(2).166
    李雯智. (2006). 焦點團體之理論探索與教育研究論文評析. 學校行政(46), 183-192.
    林金定, 嚴嘉楓, &陳美花. (2005). 質性研究方法:訪談模式與實施步驟分析. [Qualitative Research Method: Models and Steps of Interviewing]. 身心障礙研究季刊, 3(2), 122-136.
    楊慎絢, 陳美如, 蕭麗華, 廖峰偉, &黃芬芬. (2007). 臺北市職場健康促進議題與優先順序調查. [A Survey of Workplace Health Promotion Issues and Priority in Taipei City]. 北市醫學雜誌, 4(1), 61-73. doi:10.6200/tcmj.2007.4.1.08
    游麗惠, 鄭惠美, &洪惠靖. (2011). 台灣職場健康促進品質及其相關因素之前驅研究. [A Preliminary Study of WorkplaceHealth Promotion Quality andRelated Factors in Taiwan]. 健康促進暨衛生教育雜誌(31), 115-138.
    范國棟, &李蘭. (2008). 職場健康促進:國際與台灣經驗之比較. [Health Promotion in the Workplace: Comparison of the Experiences of Taiwan and Other Countries].臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 27(4), 271-281. doi:10.6288/tjph2008-27-04-01
    董貞吟, 張家榕, &陳美嬿. (2009). 臺北市職場健康促進計畫:現況與需求調查. [Workplace Health Promotion Program in Taipei: an Investigation of Current Status and Need]. 北市醫學雜誌, 6(1), 11-22. doi:10.6200/tcmj.2009.6.1.02
    鄭雅文, 葉婉榆, &林宜平. (2007). 台灣職場疲勞問題的社會性. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 26(4), 251-253.
    陳玉玲.(2014).健康職場推動中心暨職業輔導經驗分享.血管醫學防治季刊 (19),7-8.
    陳芬苓. (2005). 企業規模與實施職場健康促進之調查研究. 台灣管理學刊, 5(1), 149-168.
    章美英, &許麗齡. (2006). 質性研究-焦點團體訪談法之簡介與應用. [Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Focus Group Methodology and Its Application]. 護理雜誌, 53(2), 67-72. doi:10.6224/jn.53.2.67
    黃奕孝, 闕妙如, &湯豐誠. (2010). 營造友善職場-推動健康職場自主認證與績優表揚. 工業安全衛生(258), 32-36.
    黃淑貞, 洪文綺, 徐美玲, &陳秋蓉. (2006). 台灣金融保險業實施職場健康促進活動現況及影響推展因素初探. [Provision and the Affecting Factors of Workplace Health Promotion Programs in Banking and Financial Insurance Enterprises in Taiwan]. 衛生教育學報(25), 169-196.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE