The Health and Cost Benefits of Work Site Health-Promotion Programs

Abstract

We review the state of the art in work site health promotion (WHP), focusing on factors that influence the health and productivity of workers. We begin by defining WHP, then review the literature that addresses the business rationale for it, as well as the objections and barriers that may prevent sufficient investment in WHP. Despite methodological limitations in many available studies, the results in the literature suggest that, when properly designed, WHP can increase employees' health and productivity. We describe the characteristics of effective programs including their ability to assess the need for services, attract participants, use behavioral theory as a foundation, incorporate multiple ways to reach people, and make efforts to measure program impact. Promising practices are noted including senior management support for and participation in these programs. A very important challenge is widespread dissemination of information regarding success factors because only ∼7% of employers use all the program components required for successful interventions. The need for more and better science when evaluating program outcomes is highlighted. Federal initiatives that support cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses are stressed, as is the need to invest in healthy work environments, to complement individual based interventions.

Workplace wellbeing programs: If you build it they may NOT come…because it’s not what they really need!

“…Similar findings have previously been reported on programs offered in the United States (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008) and the United Kingdom (McGillivray, 2002). Despite the personal assistance offered by such programs, employee participation rates are typically quite low (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008;L. Linman et al, 2008;McCarthy et al, 2011;McGillivray, 2002;Rongen et al, 2014) and several studies have sought to examine the common barriers to participation (Bright et al, 2012;Lakerveld et al, 2008;Linnan, Sorensen, Colditz, Klar, & Emmons, 2001;Person, Colby, Bulova, & Eubanks, 2010;Robroek, van Lenthe, van Empelen, & Burdorf, 2009).…”

“…For example, survey data collected from 319 Australian HR professionals indicated that almost half the organisations they represented (46%) make no attempt to measure the impact of WorkWell initiatives and those that do usually limit their focus to simple usage and satisfaction measures (McCarthy, Almeida, & Ahrens, 2011). Similar findings have previously been reported on programs offered in the United States (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008) and the United Kingdom (McGillivray, 2002). Despite the personal assistance offered by such programs, employee participation rates are typically quite low (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008;L.…”

“…Linman et al, 2008;McCarthy et al, 2011;McGillivray, 2002;Rongen et al, 2014) and several studies have sought to examine the common barriers to participation (Bright et al, 2012;Lakerveld et al, 2008;Linnan, Sorensen, Colditz, Klar, & Emmons, 2001;Person, Colby, Bulova, & Eubanks, 2010;Robroek, van Lenthe, van Empelen, & Burdorf, 2009). Indeed, the participation issue has become so significant in the United States that the use of incentives is now commonplace, with estimates suggesting that incentive increases of $100 can improve participation rates by 10% (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008). As a result, incentives are considered to be a key to successful program implementation (Rula & Sacks, 2009) and lack of formal incentives has been confirmed to be a major barrier to participation (Person et al, 2010).…”

“…flu vaccinations, health insurance subsidies, physical fitness challenges) that are designed to improve not just one's experience at work but one's life more broadly. According to several reviews of this literature (Baxter, Sanderson, Venn, Blizzard, & Palmer, 2014;Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008;Pelletier, 2011;Rongen, Robroek, van Lenthe, & Burdorf, 2013), such programs have been generally successful at securing such improvements, either by lowering occupational health risks, improving productivity and/or reducing health care costs. Lower absenteeism rates and greater job satisfaction have also been reported, albeit with only small to moderate effect sizes (e.g.…”

“…Nixon, Mazzola, Bauer, Kruger, & Spector, 2011). According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the workplace represents a key channel for health promotion, a view that appears to be widely held (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008). For example, as Joslin, Lowe and Peterson (2006) (Buck, 2014), public and private sector interest in employee health and wellbeing has grown steadily over the past decade.…”