Employee perceived barriers to participation in worksite health promotion

Nöhammer, Elisabeth; Stummer, Harald; Schusterschitz, Claudia

doi:10.1007/s10389-013-0586-3

Cited by 34 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the review, the challenges of implementing a WHPP were lack of participant participation and participants leaving the programme [ 6 ]. The studies in the review primarily examined employees who either chose to sign-up for a WHPP or chose not to sign-up [ 7 ]. The review did not focus on employees who voluntarily signed-up to participate in a WHPP but afterwards only had a low-attendance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attendance barriers experienced by female health care workers voluntarily participating in a multi-component health promotion programme at the workplace

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudies have shown that Workplace Health Promoting Programmes (WHPP) can facilitate healthier behaviour. Despite the benefits achieved from participating in a WHPP, a systematic review showed that only 10–50% of the employees participated and a challenge was lack of participation. Previous studies stress that understanding the barriers that prevent participants from attending WHPPs are important for designing highly effective interventions. To exploit the potential of a WHPP, it requires a deep insight into the attendance barriers experienced by the participants who voluntarily sign-up for a WHPP; and particularly those who want to stay in the programme but are prevented from participating in it regularly. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify and explore attendance barriers experienced by female Health Care Workers (HCWs) who voluntarily participated in a weekly one-hour multi-component training session, within a WHPP, over a one-year period.MethodsThis study was carried out within a RCT named FRIDOM (FRamed Intervention to Decrease Occupational Muscle pain) and was designed as a single-case study with an inductive approach for analysing the content of in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data was collected at two home care workplaces and two retirement homes in Denmark. Nine HCWs from the intervention group were selected as participants in the present study.ResultsThe attendance barriers identified, consisted of three main themes and six related sub-themes: 1) organizational factors (work inflexibility, lack of support from team leaders), 2) intervention factors (training sessions organized outside normal work hours, incongruence between information received and reality, content and intensity of the program) and 3) individual factors (personal factors).ConclusionOrganizational and intervention factors are the two most important attendance barriers in future WHPPs. To overcome these barriers; training sessions should be organized within or in connection with work hours, support should be secured from team management and work shifts should be planned to enable attendance for all participants. Furthermore, the attendance barriers may be minimized by including participants in the decision-making process. This relates to both the content and intensity of the intervention, not only in the planning stage but throughout the intervention process.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02843269 - 06.27.2016 - retrospectively registered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6254-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attendance barriers experienced by female health care workers voluntarily participating in a multi-component health promotion programme at the workplace

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, it should be realised that there is a friction between the health-oriented view of researchers and health promoters and the complexity of participants’ everyday life [ 24 ]. The perceived difficulty of fitting intervention activities into participants’ personal life can be an important barrier to engaging in health promoting programmes [ 25 ]. In addition, an accumulation of personal problems can hinder participants from engaging in lifestyle change [ 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions on healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice: opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions to individuals with low socioeconomic status

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndividuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) are generally less well reached through lifestyle interventions than individuals with higher SES. The aim of this study was to identify opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions in such a way that they are more appealing for individuals with low SES. To this end, the study provides insight into perspectives of groups with different socioeconomic positions regarding their current eating and physical activity behaviour; triggers for lifestyle change; and ways to support lifestyle change.MethodsData were gathered in semi-structured focus group interviews among low SES (four groups) and high SES (five groups) adults. The group size varied between four and nine participants. The main themes discussed were perceptions and experiences of healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsIn general, three key topics were identified, namely: current lifestyle is logical for participants given their personal situation; lifestyle change is prompted by feedback from their body; and support for lifestyle change should include individually tailored advice and could profit from involving others. The perceptions of the low SES participants were generally comparable to the perceptions shared by the high SES participants. Some perceptions were, however, especially shared in the low SES groups. Low SES participants indicated that their current eating behaviour was sometimes affected by cost concerns. They seemed to be especially motivated to change their lifestyle when they experienced health complaints, but were rather hesitant to change their lifestyle for preventive purposes. Regarding support for lifestyle change, low SES participants preferred to receive advice in a group rather than on their own. For physical activities, groups should preferably consist of persons of the same age, gender or physical condition.ConclusionsTo motivate individuals with low SES to change their lifestyle, it may be useful to (visually) raise their awareness of their current weight or health status. Lifestyle interventions targeting individuals with low SES should take possible cost concerns into account and should harness the supportive effect of (peer) groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1036) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…health fairs). 35,74 The evaluation literature supports this self-reported preference, showing that programs with a large array of services and components were more likely to have higher participation and show greater effect on employee health behavior. 6,55,56 However, this relationship does not appear to be linear, so programs seeking high participation may want to consider expanding other components along with increasing the level of services.…”

Section: A Variety Of Services With Broad Appeal To the Employee Popumentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Concerns over sincerity are cited as a main barrier to employee participation. 74 Blue-collar workers may be especially sensitive to this, as one survey found blue-collar workers more likely than white-collar workers to perceive a lack of concern for health among their supervisors. 72 Berry et.…”

Section: Engagement Of Leadership At All Levels To Support Implementamentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Effective Design and Evaluation of Workplace Wellness Programs

Batorsky¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

R® is a registered trademark Limited Print and Electronic Distribution RightsThis document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org iii AbstractIn an effort to reduce chronic disease burden on the workforce, both public and private initiatives have promoted the rapid expansion of workplace wellness programs to encourage healthy behavior. Despite enthusiasm about these programs, evidence for their effectiveness remains mixed. The major reasons postulated for these mixed results include low participation rates, heterogeneity in program design and non-existent or poorly designed evaluations. In this dissertation, I attempted to address the gaps in the research on program components, their interactions and provide a method for evidencebased evaluation.The first chapter focuses on incentives, which are often prescribed by guidance literature to increase participation. I examined the relationship of high-value and penalty-type incentives to participation rates in a nationwide sample of employers. Results suggested that increasing the value of an incentive may not yield much in terms of participation. Penalty-type incentives were associated with higher participation, but would require significant employee buy-in to implement.The second chapter examines the relationship between program design and employee engagement. Much of the guidance literature recommends adding more components to achieve higher outcomes. However, based on analysis of data from employers and employees, it appears that there are interactions between program components and employee engagement. A program with an average number of services available may be better served by increasing the number of opportunities for employees to participate rather than increasing the number of services.The final chapter synthesizes evidence from the other chapters, guidance from the literature and interviews with wellness program stakeholders in order to provide an evidence base for an interactive evaluation tool. This tool allows small-size employers or employers at the early stages of program implementation to in...

show abstract

Employee perceived barriers to participation in worksite health promotion

Cited by 34 publications

References 28 publications

Attendance barriers experienced by female health care workers voluntarily participating in a multi-component health promotion programme at the workplace

Attendance barriers experienced by female health care workers voluntarily participating in a multi-component health promotion programme at the workplace

Perceptions on healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice: opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions to individuals with low socioeconomic status

Towards Effective Design and Evaluation of Workplace Wellness Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About