Investing in Wellbeing in the Workplace

Abstract

This chapter looks at how we can help strengthen the economic case for better mental wellbeing at work. It recognizes that being in employment in a good working environment is beneficial to health, but acknowledges that workplaces are in an accelerating cycle of restructure and change. We highlight how effective prevention of excess psychosocial stress, promotion of mental health, and a return to work activities can contribute to mental capital and mental wellbeing. We then look at what is known about the cost‐effectiveness of these interventions and how economic incentives can be used to help increase access to effective programs. The evidence base is encouraging: different combinations of interventions in workplace mental health and wellbeing programs have been shown to generate positive returns on investment. A major caveat is that nearly all of this economic evidence is from the United States, where employers have a strong incentive to take action as they are often responsible for funding health care for their employees. Financial and regulatory incentives may be needed to stimulate investment in workplace health promotion in contexts where health systems are funded by taxation or social health insurance.

Consumer Use of “Dr Google”: A Survey on Health Information-Seeking Behaviors and Navigational Needs

“…Demographic variables of age, sex, and level of education were entered alongside the other test variables, as these variables have been identified as potential contributors to the usage of Web-based health information [ 40 , 71 ]. The demographic variable examining residence in major cities or rural areas was also included in the regression model, as rurality has been identified as a potential barrier to Internet access [ 5 ]. Given the categorical nature of our demographic variables, categories with low or zero frequencies were aggregated with other categories, where logical, to allow for valid statistical conclusions.…”

“…Its pervasiveness in everyday life means it is a common source of information for many consumers [ 1 ]. Many consumers use it to obtain health-related information [ 2 - 5 ]. Accordingly, a number of studies have examined the role of the Internet in health care and its influence on the traditional relationship between consumers and their health professionals [ 6 - 10 ].…”

“…The popularity of the Internet for health-related purposes enables its use to support self-management. Indeed, numerous studies have examined the popularity of Internet use as a source of health information [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 15 - 17 ]. In the United States, 80% of Internet users use it for health information [ 3 ].…”

“…It appears that the use of the Internet for health information is more popular in Internet users with chronic health conditions or disabilities compared to Internet users without chronic health conditions or disabilities [ 18 ]. While fewer data are available within the Australian context, a 2010 study [ 5 ] suggested that almost 80% of Internet users in Australia access the Internet for health information. Despite the popularity of its use for health information, a number of studies have identified barriers to accessing Web-based health information [ 19 - 22 ].…”

“…Numerous studies have explored the characteristics of consumers’ Web-based HISB [ 3 - 5 , 23 - 44 ]. However, within the context of consumers with chronic health conditions, the majority of studies appear to focus on specific chronic health conditions [ 24 , 26 , 28 - 32 , 34 - 38 ], age [ 33 , 41 ], or ethnic groups [ 40 ], or they involve general populations that include consumers without chronic health conditions [ 3 - 5 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 39 ]. The applicability of findings from such studies to other populations may be limited.…”