CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesPublic Health Policies and Education

Moral issues in workplace health promotion

Open access
Robroek, Suzan J. W., van de Vathorst, Suzanne, Hilhorst, Medard T., Burdorf, Alex·2012·International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
DOI 10.1007/s00420-011-0675-yPMC PMC3299975
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is debate to what extent employers are entitled to interfere with the lifestyle and health of their workers. In this context, little information is available on the opinion of employees. Within the framework of a workplace health promotion (WHP) program, moral considerations among workers were investigated. METHODS: Employees from five companies were invited to participate in a WHP program. Both participants (n = 513) and non-participants (n = 205) in the program filled in a questionnaire on individual characteristics, lifestyle, health, and opinions regarding WHP. RESULTS: Nineteen percent of the non-participants did not participate in the WHP program because they prefer to arrange it themselves, and 13% (also) preferred to keep private life and work separate. More participants (87%) than non-participants (77%) agreed with the statement that it is good that employers try to improve employees' health (χ(2) = 12.78, p = 0.002), and 26% of the non-participants and 21% of the participants think employer interference with their health is a violation of their privacy. Employees aged 50 year and older were more likely to agree with the latter statement than younger workers (OR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.02-2.39). CONCLUSION: This study showed that most employees support the importance of WHP, but in a modest group of employees, moral considerations may play a role in their decision whether or not to participate in WHP. Older workers were more likely to resist employer interference with their health. Therefore, special attention on such moral considerations may be needed in the communication, design, and implementation of workplace health promotion programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00420-011-0675-y

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Employees frequently prefer to choose their own activities.

    “Mobile apps may even include certain private activities, e.g., personal jogging programmes, which can be effective, as employees frequently prefer to choose their own activities [65, 70, 73].”

    From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Abstract Results and “Why do employees not participate in workplace health promotion?” report that 19% of non-participants preferred to arrange a lifestyle-promotion program themselves. That supports a preference for self-arrangement among some employees, but not the broader claim that employees frequently prefer to choose their own activities. The copy describes this as a modest group and does not address choosing specific activities. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Mobile apps may include certain private activities, e.g., personal jogging programmes, which can be effective.

    “Mobile apps may even include certain private activities, e.g., personal jogging programmes, which can be effective, as employees frequently prefer to choose their own activities [65, 70, 73].”

    From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [73]

    The section “Why do employees not participate in workplace health promotion?” (page unavailable) reports that 19% of non-participants preferred to arrange a lifestyle-promotion programme themselves. This supports a preference for self-directed activities among some employees, but not the broader claim that employees frequently prefer them. The paper does not establish that mobile apps include personal jogging programmes or that such programmes are effective. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Robroek, S. J. W., van de Vathorst, S., Hilhorst, M. T., & Burdorf, A.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Corresponding author
Burdorf, Alex
ORCID
Venue
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-06-28
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
327-331
ISSN
  • 0340-0131 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1246
DOI
10.1007/s00420-011-0675-y
PMC
PMC3299975
OpenAlex
W2011922239
Cited by
65
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • ZonMw (62300039)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
workplace health promotion, employee attitudes, moral considerations, privacy, lifestyle, older workers, work-life separation
MeSH terms
Adult, Environmental Health, Female, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Morals, Occupational Health Services, Surveys and Questionnaires, Workplace, Privacy, Disclosure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review