[职业医生在卫生委员会的行为方式类型]。

Q3 Medicine
Masako Nagata, Koji Mori, Tomohisa Nagata, Hiroaki Kaneko, Megumi Inoue
{"title":"[职业医生在卫生委员会的行为方式类型]。","authors":"Masako Nagata,&nbsp;Koji Mori,&nbsp;Tomohisa Nagata,&nbsp;Hiroaki Kaneko,&nbsp;Megumi Inoue","doi":"10.1265/jjh.18022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this study, we aimed to categorize the actions of occupational physicians in health committees leading to solutions of occupational health problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted two focus group discussions among experienced occupational physicians. The discussions addressed the following question: what had they and others said and done that had led to the development of solutions to occupational health problems. We used a qualitative content analysis approach developed by Berelson, and created a draft of the categories of actions. Subsequently, an online questionnaire survey was then used to evaluate the external validity of the draft. The questionnaire asked physicians whether they had experience of each item in the draft. They were also asked whether they had experienced any other items not included in the draft. If so, they were asked to provide a description of their experience. These descriptions were discussed by three researchers. Any suggested new items considered to fall under any of the original items in the draft were excluded, and any new items proposed by two or more participants were added as additional items. Finally, we corrected words and phrases and reviewed the items to ensure that they clearly conveyed the required meaning, and described actions leading to solutions to occupational health problems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The content analysis revealed six basic actions, and 32 items were categorized in the draft. The six basic actions were \"participate\", \"gather information\", \"make a place that allows communication with key people and health committee members\", \"make arrangements\", \"speak at a health committee\", and \"pay attention\". In total, 67 physicians responded to the questionnaire survey. At least 40% of participants answered that they had experience of the draft items. All items in the draft had also been experienced by groups of occupational physicians other than those involved in the focus groups. Three additional items proposed by two or more participants were added. \"Pay attention\" was deleted following the final review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We categorized the actions of occupational physicians in health committees into five basic actions, and 32 items. Being aware of types of actions used in groups may encourage occupational physicians to be more involved in workplace health committees and contribute to the promotion of occupational health activities in the workplace.</p>","PeriodicalId":35643,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Types of Methods of Occupational Physician's Actions in the Health Committee].\",\"authors\":\"Masako Nagata,&nbsp;Koji Mori,&nbsp;Tomohisa Nagata,&nbsp;Hiroaki Kaneko,&nbsp;Megumi Inoue\",\"doi\":\"10.1265/jjh.18022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In this study, we aimed to categorize the actions of occupational physicians in health committees leading to solutions of occupational health problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted two focus group discussions among experienced occupational physicians. The discussions addressed the following question: what had they and others said and done that had led to the development of solutions to occupational health problems. We used a qualitative content analysis approach developed by Berelson, and created a draft of the categories of actions. Subsequently, an online questionnaire survey was then used to evaluate the external validity of the draft. The questionnaire asked physicians whether they had experience of each item in the draft. They were also asked whether they had experienced any other items not included in the draft. If so, they were asked to provide a description of their experience. These descriptions were discussed by three researchers. Any suggested new items considered to fall under any of the original items in the draft were excluded, and any new items proposed by two or more participants were added as additional items. Finally, we corrected words and phrases and reviewed the items to ensure that they clearly conveyed the required meaning, and described actions leading to solutions to occupational health problems.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The content analysis revealed six basic actions, and 32 items were categorized in the draft. The six basic actions were \\\"participate\\\", \\\"gather information\\\", \\\"make a place that allows communication with key people and health committee members\\\", \\\"make arrangements\\\", \\\"speak at a health committee\\\", and \\\"pay attention\\\". In total, 67 physicians responded to the questionnaire survey. At least 40% of participants answered that they had experience of the draft items. All items in the draft had also been experienced by groups of occupational physicians other than those involved in the focus groups. Three additional items proposed by two or more participants were added. \\\"Pay attention\\\" was deleted following the final review.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We categorized the actions of occupational physicians in health committees into five basic actions, and 32 items. Being aware of types of actions used in groups may encourage occupational physicians to be more involved in workplace health committees and contribute to the promotion of occupational health activities in the workplace.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Japanese Journal of Hygiene\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Japanese Journal of Hygiene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1265/jjh.18022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1265/jjh.18022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在本研究中,我们旨在分类卫生委员会职业医师的行为,导致职业健康问题的解决。方法:对有经验的职业医师进行两次焦点小组讨论。讨论了以下问题:他们和其他人说了什么和做了什么,导致制定了解决职业健康问题的办法。我们使用了Berelson开发的定性内容分析方法,并创建了行动类别的草案。随后,使用在线问卷调查来评估草案的外部效度。问卷询问医生是否对草案中的每个项目都有经验。他们还被问及是否经历过草案中未包括的任何其他项目。如果是这样,他们被要求描述他们的经历。三位研究者对这些描述进行了讨论。任何被认为属于草案任何原项目的建议的新项目被排除在外,两个或两个以上与会者提出的任何新项目被作为补充项目增加。最后,我们纠正了单词和短语,并审查了项目,以确保它们清楚地传达了所需的含义,并描述了导致解决职业健康问题的行动。结果:内容分析揭示了6个基本动作,草案共分类了32个项目。这六项基本行动是“参与”、“收集信息”、“创造一个可以与关键人物和卫生委员会成员交流的地方”、“作出安排”、“在卫生委员会发言”和“注意”。总共有67名医生回答了问卷调查。至少有40%的参与者回答说他们对草案项目有经验。除参加焦点小组的职业医生外,其他职业医生小组也经历过草案中的所有项目。增加了两个或两个以上与会者提议的三个额外项目。“请注意”在最终审查后被删除。结论:我们将卫生委员会职业医师的行为分为5个基本行为、32个项目。了解群体中采取的行动类型,可以鼓励职业医生更多地参与工作场所健康委员会的工作,并有助于促进工作场所的职业健康活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Types of Methods of Occupational Physician's Actions in the Health Committee].

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to categorize the actions of occupational physicians in health committees leading to solutions of occupational health problems.

Methods: We conducted two focus group discussions among experienced occupational physicians. The discussions addressed the following question: what had they and others said and done that had led to the development of solutions to occupational health problems. We used a qualitative content analysis approach developed by Berelson, and created a draft of the categories of actions. Subsequently, an online questionnaire survey was then used to evaluate the external validity of the draft. The questionnaire asked physicians whether they had experience of each item in the draft. They were also asked whether they had experienced any other items not included in the draft. If so, they were asked to provide a description of their experience. These descriptions were discussed by three researchers. Any suggested new items considered to fall under any of the original items in the draft were excluded, and any new items proposed by two or more participants were added as additional items. Finally, we corrected words and phrases and reviewed the items to ensure that they clearly conveyed the required meaning, and described actions leading to solutions to occupational health problems.

Results: The content analysis revealed six basic actions, and 32 items were categorized in the draft. The six basic actions were "participate", "gather information", "make a place that allows communication with key people and health committee members", "make arrangements", "speak at a health committee", and "pay attention". In total, 67 physicians responded to the questionnaire survey. At least 40% of participants answered that they had experience of the draft items. All items in the draft had also been experienced by groups of occupational physicians other than those involved in the focus groups. Three additional items proposed by two or more participants were added. "Pay attention" was deleted following the final review.

Conclusions: We categorized the actions of occupational physicians in health committees into five basic actions, and 32 items. Being aware of types of actions used in groups may encourage occupational physicians to be more involved in workplace health committees and contribute to the promotion of occupational health activities in the workplace.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Japanese Journal of Hygiene
Japanese Journal of Hygiene Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信