Development and Validity of a Workplace Health Promotion Best Practices Assessment
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, ISSN: 1536-5948, Vol: 62, Issue: 1, Page: 18-24
2020
- 12Citations
- 60Usage
- 30Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations12
- Citation Indexes12
- CrossRef12
- 12
- Usage60
- Downloads57
- Abstract Views3
- Captures30
- Readers30
- 30
Article Description
Objective:To explore the factor structure of the HERO Health and Well-being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer (HERO Scorecard) to develop a reduced version and examine the reliability and validity of that version.Methods:A reduced version of the HERO Scorecard was developed through formal statistical analyses on data collected from 845 organizations that completed the original HERO Scorecard.Results:The final factors in the reduced Scorecard represented content pertaining to organizational and leadership support, program comprehensiveness, program integration, and incentives. All four implemented practices were found to have a strong, statistically significant effect on perceived effectiveness. Organizational and leadership support had the strongest effect (β = 0.56), followed by incentives (β = 0.23).Conclusion:The condensed version of the HERO Scorecard has the potential to be a promising tool for future research on the extent to which employers are adopting best practices in their health and well-being (HWB) initiatives.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85072630316&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000001724; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31568103; https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001724; https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/hhp_fac/34; https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=hhp_fac; https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/jom.0000000000001724; https://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/2020/01000/Development_and_Validity_of_a_Workplace_Health.4.aspx
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know