Skip to main content
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2008 Jan 1;99(1):73–77. doi: 10.1007/BF03403746

Implementation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive Worksite Health Promotion Program

Lise Renaud 116,, Natalie Kishchuk 216, Martin Juneau 316,416, Anil Nigam 316,416, Karine Tétreault 316, Marie-Claude Leblanc 416
PMCID: PMC6976207  PMID: 18435397

Abstract

Background

This paper reports on the implementation and results of a three-year comprehensive worksite health promotion program called Take care of your health!, delivered at a single branch of a large financial organization with 656 employees at the beginning of the implementation period and 905 at the end. The program included six educational modules delivered over a three-year period. A global health profile was part of the first and last modules. The decision to implement the program coincided with an overall program of organizational renewal.

Methods

The data for this evaluation come from four sources: analysis of changes in employee health profiles between the first and last program sessions (n=270); questionnaires completed by participating employees at the end of the program (n=169); organizational data on employee absenteeism and turnover; and qualitative interviews with company managers (n=9).

Results

Employee participation rates in the six modules varied between 39% and 76%. The assessment of health profile changes showed a significant increase in the Global Health Score. Participants were significantly more likely to report more frequent physical activity and better nutritional practices. The proportion of smokers among participants was significantly reduced (p=0.0147). Also reduced significantly between the two measurements were self-assessment of high stress inside and outside the workplace, stress signs, and feelings of depression. Employees were highly satisfied with the program and felt that it had impacts on their knowledge and capacities to manage their health behaviour. During the same period, absenteeism in the organization declined by 28% and turnover by 54%. From the organization’s perspective, program implementation was very successful.

Conclusions

This study’s results are in line with previous findings of significant benefits to organizations and employees from worksite health promotion. The close relationship between the program outcomes and the overall process of organizational renewal that it accompanied supports previous arguments that worksite health promotion will be most effective when it promotes overall organizational health.

Keywords: Health behaviour, health promotion, workplace

References

  • 1.Pelletier K. A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: Update VI 2000–2004. J Occup Environ Med. 2005;47(10):1051–58. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000174303.85442.bf. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pelletier K. A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: 1998–2000 update. Am J Health Promot. 2001;16(2):107–16. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-16.2.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pelletier K. Clinical and cost outcomes of multi-factorial, cardiovascular risk management interventions in the worksite: A comprehensive review and analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39(12):1154–69. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199712000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Prior J, van Melle G, Crisinal A, Burnad B, Cornuz J, Darioli R. Evaluation of a multicom-ponent worksite health promotion program for cardiovascular risk factors–Correcting for the regression toward the mean effect. Prev Med. 2005;40(3):259–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wilson MG, Holman PB, Hammock A. A comprehensive review of the effects of worksite health promotion on health-related outcomes. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(6):492–35. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.6.429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wilson MG. A comprehensive review of the effects of worksite health promotion on health-related outcomes: An update. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):107–8. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Harden A, Peersman G, Oliver S, Mauthner M, Oakley A. A systematic review of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in the workplace. Occup Med (London) 1999;49(8):540–48. doi: 10.1093/occmed/49.8.540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Heany C. A review of health-related outcomes of multi-component worksite health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11(4):290–307. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-11.4.290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Poole K, Kumpfer K, Pett M. The impact of an incentive-based worksite health promotion program on modifiable risk factors. Am J Health Promot. 2001;16(1):21–26. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-16.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Reidel J, Lynch W, Baase C, Hymel P, Peterson K. The effect of disease prevention and health promotion on workplace productivity: A literature review. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15(3):167–91. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-15.3.167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goetzel R, Jacobson B, Aldana S, Vardell K, Lee L. Health care costs of worksite health promotion participants and nonparticipants. J Occup Environ Med. 1998;40(4):341–46. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199804000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schultz A, Lu C, Barnett TE, Yen LT, McDonald T, Hirschland D, et al. Influence of participation in a worksite health promotion program on disability days. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44(8):776–80. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200208000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Aldana S, Merrill R, Price K, Hardy A, Hager R. Financial impact of a comprehensive multisite workplace health promotion program. Prev Med. 2005;40(2):131–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Engbers L, van Poppel M, Chin A, Paw M, van Mechelen W. Worksite health promotion programs with environmental changes: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(10):61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kerr N, Yore M, Ham S, Dietz W. Increasing stair use through environmental modification. Am J Health Promot. 2004;18(4):312–15. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-18.4.312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Musich S, MacDonald T, Hirschland D, Edington D. Examination of risk status transitions among active employees in a comprehensive worksite health promotion program. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(4):393–99. doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000052969.43131.fc. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Patterson R, Kristal A, Biener L, Varnes J, Feng Z, Glanz K, et al. Prev Med. 1998. Durability and diffusion of the nutrition intervention in the Working Well Trial. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tilley B, Vernon S, Glanz K, Myers R, Sanders K, Lu M, et al. Nutrition intervention for high-risk auto workers: Results of the Next Step trial. Prev Med. 1999;28(3):284–92. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Crump C, Earp J, Kozma C, Hertz-Piccitto I. Effect of organization-level variables on differential employee participation in 10 federal worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1996;2392:204–23. doi: 10.1177/109019819602300206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Crump C, Shegog R, Gottlieb N, Grunbaum J. Comparison of participation in federal worksite and community health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 2001;15(4):232–36. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-15.4.232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Linnan L, Sorenson G, Colditz G, Klar D, Emmons K. Using theory to understand the multiple determinants of low participation in worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 2001;28(5):591–607. doi: 10.1177/109019810102800506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Proper K, Van der Beek A, Hildebrandt V, Twisk J, van Mechelen W. Worksite health promotion using individual counselling and the effectiveness on sick leave. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(3):275–79. doi: 10.1136/oem.2002.005769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.De Joy D, Wilson M. Organizational health promotion: Broadening the horizons of workplace health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 2003;17(5):337–41. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-17.5.337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES