目的：探討醫師及醫事組、護理組及行政組之體適能各項指標之差異，並了解員工之健康體適能現況。方法：本研究採橫斷性調查與便利抽樣，委託第三方專業機構至本院進行科技體適能檢測。有效樣本共 300 位，依職類分為醫師及醫事人員、護理人員與行政人員各100位。檢測構面涵蓋身體組成（含BMI與腰臀比）、肌力（握力）、柔軟度（坐姿體前彎）與心肺耐力。其中心肺耐力採用「三分鐘漸進式原地抬膝踏步測驗（3MPKS）」，免除傳統登階箱之場地限制，兼具安全性與精準度。統計分析採用單因子共變數分析（ANCOVA），控制性別、年齡與規律運動習慣等人口統計干擾變項。結果：排除共變量干擾後，不同職類員工在身體質量指數（BMI）與柔軟度上仍具顯著差異：BMI：行政組>護理組>醫事組(p=0.001 , Partial η²= 0.042)，具接近中等之效應量，坐姿體前彎：醫事組>行政組>護理組（p= 0.020 , Partial η²= 0.025），屬小至中等效應量，此兩項檢測數值在三組間具有顯著之組間差異。另外，手握力(p=0.510, Partial η²= 0.005)、心肺耐力 (p=0.770, Partial η²= 0.002)，與腰臀比(p=0.070)在控制變項後無顯著差異，且效果量極低，但腰臀比(p=0.070 ,Partial η²= 0.018)已呈現統計學上之邊緣顯著（Marginally Significant）趨勢，且具備小效應量。比對常模後發現，男性柔軟度以「不好」最多，男女性在心肺耐力皆以「不好」居多。結論：本研究採用創新簡易又安全的方法檢測醫院員工之體適能以提升參與意願，有助於員工自我健康管理，排除人口統計變數干擾後，不同職類員工之身體組成與柔軟度仍具顯著差異，亦可做為醫療機構推動職場健康促進策略之參考，建議針對不同職類與性別設計個別化介入方案，強化心肺耐力與柔軟度之改善，提升整體健康體適能表現。

Objective: To explore the differences in various physical fitness indicators among physicians and medical staff, nurses and administrative staff, and to under-stand the current status of employees’ health and physical fitness. Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study utilized convenience sampling, entraining a third-party professional organization to conduct technology-based physical fitness assessments at our hospital. A total of 300 valid participants completed the assess-ments and were evenly divided into three groups based on their occupational catego-ries: physicians and medical personnel (N = 100), nursing staff (N = 100), and ad-ministrative staff (N = 100). The assessment dimensions encompassed body compo-sition indicators (including body mass index BMI and waist-to-hip ratio), muscular strength (handgrip strength), flexibility (sit-and-reach test), and cardiorespiratory endurance. Specifically, cardiorespiratory endurance was evaluated using the three-minute progressive in-place knee-lift step test (3MPKS) , which eliminates the spatial limitations of traditional step-up boxes while offering enhanced safety and precision. For inferential statistics, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed, with gender, age, and regular exercise habits controlled as covariates to eliminate demographic confounding factors. Results: After excluding covariate interference, BMI was highest in the administrative group, BMI was highest in the administrative staff group, followed by the nursing staff group and the medical per-sonnel group (p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.042). The effect size approached the moderate range. For sit-and-reach performance, the medical personnel group performed best, followed by the administrative staff group and the nursing staff group (p = 0.020, partial η² = 0.025), with a small-to-moderate effect size. No significant differences were observed in handgrip strength (p = 0.510, partial η² = 0.005), cardiorespiratory endurance (p = 0.770, partial η² = 0.002), or waist-to-hip ratio (p = 0.070) after ad-justment. The effect sizes for these indicators were small. However, the waist-to-hip ratio showed a marginal trend toward statistical significance (p = 0.070, partial η² = 0.018). Norm comparison revealed that men had the most frequent rating of "poor" in flexibility, while both men and women had the most frequent rating of "poor" in cardiorespiratory endurance. Conclusion: This study uses an innovative, simple, and safe method to assess the physical fitness of hospital employees to enhance their willingness to participate, which helps employees manage their own health. After excluding the interference of demographic variables, there are still significant dif-ferences in body composition and flexibility among employees of different occupa-tions. This study can also serve as a reference for medical institutions to promote workplace health promotion strategies. It is recommended to design individualized intervention programs for different occupations and genders to enhance cardi-orespiratory endurance and flexibility, thereby improving overall health and physical fitness performance.