Workplace health promotion in health care settings in Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Health care workers (HCWs) have a great background to promote their health - not only their professional knowledge on health but often also special equipment in their work environment. However, it is unclear if HCWs can use such infrastructure to promote their own health as well as what is their motivation to change their own lifestyles. Thus, the aim of the article was to describe workplace health promotion (WHP) situation in health care settings in Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey of 357 workers from health care sector in three European countries was conducted. Participants were asked to indicate various WHP activities/facilities/programs organized at their workplaces, WHP needs, opportunities to initiate changes related to the healthiness of their workplaces, and readiness to change their lifestyles. RESULTS: Participants from three European countries differed in their WHP needs and in their responses on various activities/facilities/programs implemented at the institutions. Workers from Finnish institutions had the greatest opportunities to make initiatives relevant to their workplaces' healthiness, while Lithuanian workers were least provided with such opportunities. Furthermore, the results showed that there were differences of readiness to change among the workers from the three countries. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs recognized various WHP activities, facilities and programs organized at their workplaces; however, their needs were notably higher than the situation reported. WHP situation differed among the three European countries.

The legislative backgrounds of workplace health promotion in three European countries: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: This article investigates the legal database and theoretical basis of workplace health promotion (WHP) in three European countries: Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and aims to find insights into effective WHP implementation. METHODS: In November 2013, a stakeholders' survey was carried out. The questionnaire included questions about legal documents and non-legislative measures relevant to WHP, institutions and other bodies/organizations working in the field, WHP conception/definition, and implementation of WHP activities according to the enterprises' size. RESULTS: Only Finland has adopted a specific law on occupational health care (separate from occupational safety). ILO conventions No. 161 (Occupational Health Services Convention) and No. 187 (Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention) are ratified only in Finland. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health acts as one ministry, while two Baltic countries have two separate ministries (one for health and another for social affairs). None of the countries has legally approved a definition of WHP. Latvia and Lithuania tend to separate WHP from other activities, whereas Finland integrates WHP into other occupational health and safety elements. CONCLUSIONS: Finland has a more extensive legislative and organizational background to WHP than Latvia and Lithuania. In defining WHP, all the countries refer to the Luxembourg Declaration on Workplace Health Promotion in the European Union. Finland's practice of integrating WHP into other occupational health and safety elements is important.