Table 4.

OP participation in HP plans.

Participation in HP plans	N	%
In the last 5 years, did you organize HP interventions?
Yes	192	57.3
No	143	42.7
In the last 5 years, did you collaborate in HP interventions?
Yes	183	54.8
No	151	45.2
What areas of intervention are your HP programs focused on?
Promotion of “healthy” lifestyles (nutrition, voluptuary habits, physical activity, sleep hygiene)	234	54.8
Promotion of workers’ psychological well-being	98	23.0
Promotion of a comfortable working environment	64	15.0
Promotion of a better home-work relationship	31	7.2
How long did the HP interventions last?
A day or less	64	24.0
Some days	65	24.3
A few months	65	24.3
A few years, then interrupted	12	4.5
A few years and still ongoing	61	22.9
How do you evaluate the workers’ participation?
Insufficient	6	2.2
Poor	40	14.7
Sufficient	102	37.4
Good	105	38.4
High	20	7.3
How do you evaluate the HP interventions’ effectiveness?
Not effective at all	..	..
Not very effective	46	17.3
Quiet effective	174	65.5
Very effective	39	14.6
Completely effective	7	2.6
Have effectiveness indicators been adopted?
Yes	180	66.7
No	48	17.8
I don’t know	42	15.5
A prominent role in HP interventions was played by:
Employer	165	23.3
Personnel/Human Resources Manager	120	17.0
Prevention and Protection Service	161	22.8
Workers’ Safety Representative	115	16.3
Workers	91	12.8
Operators of the Department of Prevention	55	7.8
To implement occupational HP interventions, you suggest:
Collaboration between different disciplines of the healthcare sector	222	72.1*
Information on the population to be targeted by the intervention	133	43.2*
Training of OPs on HP procedures	195	63.3*
Adequate funding	160	52.0*
Contractual provision of an economic recognition of the OP	104	33.8*
More time available	122	39.6*
Evaluation of the quality of HP programs	123	39.9*
Evaluation of the effectiveness of HP programs	174	56.5*

*Multiple choices account for the sum of percentages exceeding 100; HP, health promotion; OP, occupational physician.