{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.047651463580667124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02450646698434309, 'mean_word_length': 5.621621621621622, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Preferred components of an occupational health service for small industry in New Zealand: health protection or health promotion?

Two hundred workers in small industry in New Zealand completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire about worksite occupational health services. The majority (71%) saw a need for these. Only 15% considered that they should include general health advice. The component with the highest approval was specialist referrals (95%), followed by biological monitoring (80%), occupational health education (77%), local environmental issues (77%) and workplace environmental monitoring (74%). General health education and health promotion ranked lowest at 65% and 55%, respectively. There was no difference between occupational groups except for general health education (P = 0.003), which the administrative group rated lower (41%) than the other groups did (66-83%). The most favoured single component in a protection/prevention service was biological monitoring (42%), and the most favoured component in a service dealing with non-work-related issues was local environmental issues (37%), with counselling and lifestyle issues the least favoured (9% each). There were statistically significant differences (P = 0.03) between occupational groups for non-work-related services. The results of the survey suggest that there is little demand for health promotion activities but good support for a protection/prevention service in small industry.