Table S5.
Analyses of the differences with respect to have been organizing HP interventions.
| Number of responses | No, N = 143 | Yes, N = 192 | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 335 | 0.127 | ||
| Female | 53 (37%) | 56 (29%) | ||
| Male | 90 (63%) | 136 (71%) | ||
| Age | 335 | 0.020 | ||
| < 39 years | 20 (14%) | 21 (11%) | ||
| 40-49 years | 19 (13%) | 40 (21%) | ||
| 50-59 years | 28 (20%) | 56 (29%) | ||
| => 60 years | 76 (53%) | 75 (39%) | ||
| OP activity | 335 | |||
| Yes | 143 (100%) | 192 (100%) | ||
| In how many companies are you currently appointed as OP? | 331 | 0.043 | ||
| ≤ 25 enterprises | 75 (53%) | 122 (64%) | ||
| >25 enterprises | 66 (47%) | 68 (36%) | ||
| Number of employees in the enterprises where the OPs performed their professional activity | 328 | <0.001 | ||
| ≤ 49 employees | 57 (40%) | 125 (67%) | ||
| >49 employees | 84 (60%) | 62 (33%) | ||
| Number of followed workers per OP | 327 | <0.001 | ||
| ≤500 | 47 (33%) | 31 (17%) | ||
| > 500 | 94 (67%) | 155 (83%) | ||
| Following the enactment of Legislative Decree 81/2008 and subsequent amendments, occupational HP programs have increased | 334 | 0.164 | ||
| Do not agree at all | 14 (9.8%) | 11 (5.8%) | ||
| Disagree | 45 (31%) | 43 (23%) | ||
| Quite agree | 61 (43%) | 102 (53%) | ||
| Very much agree | 15 (10%) | 24 (13%) | ||
| Totally agree | 8 (5.6%) | 11 (5.8%) | ||
| Occupational HP programs should be understood as an integral part of a system for protecting workers’ health and psycho-physical integrity | 335 | 0.052 | ||
| Do not agree at all | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.0%) | ||
| Disagree | 4 (2.8%) | 4 (2.1%) | ||
| Quite agree | 38 (27%) | 28 (15%) | ||
| Very much agree | 53 (37%) | 84 (44%) | ||
| Totally agree | 48 (34%) | 74 (39%) | ||
| Occupational HP programs should be supported by collaboration with other health professionals (general practitioners, specialists in other disciplines) | 335 | 0.054 | ||
| Do not agree at all | 0 (0%) | 3 (1.6%) | ||
| Disagree | 3 (2.1%) | 4 (2.1%) | ||
| Quite agree | 47 (33%) | 45 (23%) | ||
| Very much agree | 47 (33%) | 88 (46%) | ||
| Totally agree | 46 (32%) | 52 (27%) | ||
| Based on your work experience, generally, the interest of employers in implementing HP programs is: | 334 | <0.001 | ||
| Insufficient | 17 (12%) | 10 (5.2%) | ||
| Poor | 53 (37%) | 59 (31%) | ||
| Sufficient | 51 (36%) | 57 (30%) | ||
| Good | 20 (14%) | 56 (29%) | ||
| High | 1 (0.7%) | 10 (5.2%) | ||
| In the last 5 years, during your work as OP, have you had the opportunity to collaborate to HP interventions? | 333 | <0.001 | ||
| No | 114 (80%) | 37 (19%) | ||
| Yes | 28 (20%) | 154 (81%) | ||
| How do you evaluate the workers’participation in such voluntary interventions? | 273 | <0.001 | ||
| Insufficient | 6 (7.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Poor | 19 (23%) | 21 (11%) | ||
| Sufficient | 35 (43%) | 66 (34%) | ||
| Good | 19 (23%) | 86 (45%) | ||
| High | 2 (2.5%) | 19 (9.9%) | ||
| How do you evaluate the effectiveness of the HP interventions adopted? | 266 | <0.001 | ||
| Not effective at all | 23 (30%) | 23 (12%) | ||
| Not very effective | 51 (66%) | 123 (65%) | ||
| Quite effective | 3 (3.9%) | 36 (19%) | ||
| Very effective | 0 (0%) | 7 (3.7%) | ||
| Have effectiveness indicators been adopted (e.g. Key Performance Indicators – KPI)? | 270 | 0.001 | ||
| No | 53 (67%) | 127 (66%) | ||
| I don’t know | 20 (25%) | 22 (12%) | ||
| Yes | 6 (7.6%) | 42 (22%) |
HP, health promotion; OP, occupational physician.