Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 73–77 | Cite as

Implementation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive Worksite Health Promotion Program

  • Lise Renaud
  • Natalie Kishchuk
  • Martin Juneau
  • Anil Nigam
  • Karine Tétreault
  • Marie-Claude Leblanc
Article

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 

Résumé

Contexte

Cet article présente un compte rendu de l’implantation et des résultats d’un programme de promotion de la santé intitulé Ma santé, je m’en occupe! au sein du premier groupe à s’en prévaloir. Le programme a initialement été mis en œuvre dans l’un des services d’une grande entreprise financière. Ce service comptait 656 employés au début de la période d’implantation et 905 à la fin. Le programme comportait six modules éducatifs offerts sur une période de trois ans. Le premier et le dernier modules comprenaient un bilan de santé globale. La décision d’implanter ce programme a coïncidé avec un projet global de renouveau organisationnel.

Méthode

Les données de notre évaluation proviennent de quatre sources: l’analyse des profils de santé globale des employés qui ont participé au premier et au dernier modules du programme (n=270); les questionnaires remplis par ces mêmes employés à la fin du programme (n=169); les données organisationnelles sur l’absentéisme et le roulement du personnel, ainsi que des entrevues qualitatives auprès de gestionnaires de l’entreprise (n=9).

Résultats

Les taux de participation des employés aux six modules ont varié entre 39 % et 76 %. L’analyse des profils de santé a montré une augmentation significative du score de santé globale. Les participants étaient, de façon significative, plus nombreux à déclarer une fréquence d’activité physique accrue ainsi que de meilleures habitudes alimentaires. Le pourcentage de fumeurs parmi les participants a diminué de façon significative (p=0,0147). Les niveaux de stress élevés au travail ou à l’extérieur, les symptômes de stress et les sentiments de déprime autodéclarés ont aussi diminué significativement entre les deux mesures. Les employés se sont montrés très satisfaits du programme et ont senti qu’il avait eu des impacts sur leurs connaissances et leurs capacités de prendre leur santé en main. Au cours de la même période, l’absentéisme a diminué de 28 % et le roulement du personnel de 54 % dans l’organisation. Du point de vue de gestionnaires interviewés, l’implantation du programme a été une réussite.

Conclusions

Les résultats de cette étude sont conformes aux résultats antérieurs ayant démontré les avantages considérables des programmes de promotion de la santé en milieu de travail pour les organisations et les employés. Le lien étroit entre les résultats du programme et le projet global de renouveau organisationnel qu’il a accompagné confirme les observations antérieures selon lesquelles les programmes de promotion de la santé en milieu de travail sont plus efficaces lorsqu’ils encouragent la santé organisationnelle de façon globale.

Motsclés

habitudes de vie promotion de la santé milieu de travail 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerr N, Yore M, Ham S, Dietz W. Increasing stair use through environmental modification. Am J Health Promot 2004;18(4):312–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patterson R, Kristal A, Biener L, Varnes J, Feng Z, Glanz K, et al. Durability and diffusion of the nutrition intervention in the Working Well Trial. Prev Med 1998;27(5 pt 1):668-73.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Renaud
    • 1
  • Natalie Kishchuk
    • 2
  • Martin Juneau
    • 3
    • 4
  • Anil Nigam
    • 3
    • 4
  • Karine Tétreault
    • 3
  • Marie-Claude Leblanc
    • 4
  1. 1.Département de communication sociale et publiqueUniversité du Québec à Montréal Case Postale 8888, Succursale Centre-VilleMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Natalie Kishchuk Recherche et évaluation incCanada
  3. 3.Montreal Heart Institute Research CentreCanada
  4. 4.Montreal Heart Institute Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (Centre ÉPIC)Canada

Personalised recommendations