Objectives: Most cancer control measures in the workplace have limited supporting evidence. This study aimed to identify highly effective cancer control measures, based on a survey by the Corporate Action to Promote Cancer Control. Methods: The firms and organizations that responded to the web survey were included. The questionnaire comprised five cancer (stomach, lung, colorectal, breast, and cervical) screening rates and their countermeasures to promote cancer control. We conducted a non-hierarchical cluster analysis according to the degree of the measures and compared the screening rates among each group using an analysis of variance. Then, we performed two multiple regression analyses with the mean screening rates for stomach/lung/colorectal cancer and breast/cervical cancer as dependent variables, the implementation of each countermeasure as an independent variable, and the size and industry as control variables. Results: We obtained responses from 704 firms and organizations. The three groups classified by cluster analysis were defined as active, moderate, and negative. For all cancer screenings, the main effects were significant, and multiple comparisons revealed that the difference between the active and negative groups (ts > 3.30, ps < .01, Hedges’ ds > 0.73) and the moderate and negative groups (ts > 3.70, ps < .01, Hedges’ ds > 0.88) were significant. For the four cancers other than lung, the difference between the active and moderate groups was not significant (ts < 0.21, ps < .84, Hedges’ ds < 0.02), and for lung, the difference was significant, but the effect size was small. The multiple regression analyses revealed that “distribution of colorectal cancer test kits to all subjects” (β = 0.14) was significant for stomach, lung, and colorectal cancer, while “financial supports for cancer screening” (β = 0.24), “screening as part of employment” (β = 0.18), and “careful screening of female subjects” (β = 0.17) were significant for breast and cervical cancer, respectively. Conclusions: We identified effective countermeasures for cancer control in the workplace, and these measures will help increase cancer screening rates.

Objectives: This study identified changes in the work environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic, subsequent initiatives and outcomes, and facilitating factors from the perspective of company officials in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Methods: In 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with employers or human resource managers of SMEs with less than 300 employees regarding changes in the work environment due to the pandemic, initiatives, outcomes, and facilitating factors. Thereafter, codes were extracted from verbatim transcripts or interview notes and categorized based on similarities in content. Results: Based on interviews with 16 companies, the following four major categories of changes in the work environment were identified: “conflict and anxiety about infection when employees were forced to attend work despite the rapid transmission of the infection,” “unfamiliarity and loneliness with the new working style that was suddenly imposed on them,” “loss of emotional ties with workmates and opportunities for mood changes,” and “future anxiety, feelings of alienation, and mental illness.” The following seven initiatives were implemented to address these issues: “a hands-on approach to infection prevention and physical healthcare,” “urgent introduction of telework for business continuity,” “development and promotion of online information sharing,” “establishment of a place and opportunity to maintain emotional connections within the company,” “economic and management measures to protect employees and ensure company continuity,” “support for employees for health maintenance,” and “measures to respond to employees’ needs and ideas, and support the continuation of activities.” Four major categories of outcomes were: “increased efficiency of information sharing and enhanced performance,” “maintenance and promotion of emotional ties and a sense of solidarity,” “increased independence and sense of health among employees,” and “adaptation of employees to novel situations.” The initiatives were facilitated by factors classified into the following three major categories: “workplace culture wherein employees shared opinions and helped each other,” “management’s attitude and philosophy of valuing employees,” and “proactive attitude toward information acquisition and resource utilization.” Conclusions: The rapid introduction of teleworking as a new working style in response to the need to balance infection control and business continuity resulted in increased loneliness and other associated stressors. Many SMEs stated that they could maintain a sense of solidarity in the workplace and improve employee autonomy through their efforts to incorporate employees’ opinions and maintain human connections.

Objective: The benefits of physical activity are well-recognized but physical activity promotion projects (PAPP) are not well implemented in workplaces, resulting in an evidence-practice gap. This study identified the organizational factors associated with PAPP in the workplace in Japan. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire survey was postal mailed to 3,266 listed companies (with ≥ 50 employees) in Japan. The items surveyed included the presence or absence of PAPP and 29 organizational factors. Organizational factors were also extracted from interviews with corporate health managers. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was applied. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted with the presence or absence of PAPP as the objective variable, each quartile group (Q1–Q4) of the total number of relevant organizational factors as the explanatory variable, and the basic workplace attributes as the covariate. Results: The analysis covered 301 workplaces. Of these, 98 (32.6%) had implemented PAPP. The adjusted odds ratio for PAPP for each group based on Q1 was 1.88 (0.62–5.70) for Q2, 3.38 (1.21–9.43) for Q3, and 29.69 (9.95–88.59) for Q4. The association between each organizational factor and PAPP was high for the constructs in the ‘inner setting’ of the CFIR. The observed adjusted odds ratios for these items were: ‘there is a precedent for PAPP’ 12.50 (6.42–24.34), ‘there is a budget for the health department’ 10.36 (5.24–20.47), ‘understanding of the health department manager’ 8.41 (4.43–15.99), ‘understanding of workplace management’ 7.63 (4.16–14.02), ‘employee 7.31 (3.42–15.64), and ‘requests from employees’ 7.31 (3.42–15.64). Conclusion: There was a quantity-response relationship between the number of applicable organizational factors and PAPP. It has been suggested that the expansion of organizational factors may lead to PAPP. In particular, the creation of an internal atmosphere and the promotion of understanding among the people concerned may be useful.