Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 79–85 | Cite as

Workplace Interventions to Reduce Obesity and Cardiometabolic Risk



The worksite is ideal for implementing interventions to reduce obesity and cardiometabolic risk factors. Although worksite health promotion is not new, employer-sponsored wellness programs have become more widespread due to the rising prevalence and high cost of obesity. Over the past two decades, employers and researchers focused efforts on individual-based programs to change employees’ nutrition and exercise behaviors, but more recently, the worksite environment has been targeted. Overall, there is good evidence that individual-based worksite programs can produce modest weight loss, but the evidence for effects on other risk factors and on long-term health outcomes and costs is inconsistent. There is less evidence for the benefit of environmental-based interventions, and more data will be needed to establish conclusions about the benefits of these types of interventions. A major challenge for employers and researchers in the future will be to find the balance between effectiveness and economic viability of worksite wellness programs.


Obesity Worksite intervention Physical activity Nutrition Environmental intervention Cardiovascular risk Cost-effectiveness 



Anne Thorndike is supported by the grant 1 K23 HL93221-01 A1 from the National Institutes of Health.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, et al. Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. JAMA 2003, 289:76–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Finkelstein EA, Trogdon J, Cohen JW and Dietz W. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer- and service-specific estimates. Health affairs 2009, 28:w822–w831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blumenthal D. Employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States—origins and implications. N.Engl.J.Med. 2006, 355:82–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baicker K, Cutler D and Song Z. Workplace wellness programs can generate savings. Health affairs 2010, 29:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Goetzel RZ, Roemer EC, Pei X, et al. Second-year results of an obesity prevention program at the Dow Chemical Company. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2010, 52:291–302. This is one of the seven NHLBI-sponsored studies funded to evaluate worksite environmental interventions. The results suggested an effect of the intervention on weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol, but these results must be interpreted cautiously due to low participation and high attrition for measurement of outcomes.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hertz RP, Unger AN, McDonald M, et al. The impact of obesity on work limitations and cardiovascular risk factors in the U.S. workforce. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2004, 46:1196–1203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goetzel RZ, Hawkins K, Ozminkowski RJ and Wang S. The health and productivity cost burden of the “top 10” physical and mental health conditions affecting six large U.S. employers in 1999. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2003, 45:5–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brownell KD, Cohen RY, Stunkard AJ, et al. Weight loss competitions at the work site: impact on weight, morale and cost-effectiveness. Am.J.Public Health 1984, 74:1283–1285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blair SN, Piserchia PV, Wilbur CS and Crowder JH. A public health intervention model for work-site health promotion. Impact on exercise and physical fitness in a health promotion plan after 24 months. JAMA 1986, 255:921–926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gebhardt DL ,Crump C. Employee fitness and wellness programs in the workplace. Am.Psychol. 1990, 45:262–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pelletier KR. Clinical and cost outcomes of multifactorial, cardiovascular risk management interventions in worksites: a comprehensive review and analysis. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 1997, 39:1154–1169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koh HK, Sebelius KG. Promoting prevention through the affordable care act. N.Engl.J.Med. 2010, 363:1296–1299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katz DL, O’Connell M, Yeh MC, et al. Public health strategies for preventing and controlling overweight and obesity in school and worksite settings: a report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005, 54:1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Anderson LM, Quinn TA, Glanz K, et al. The effectiveness of worksite nutrition and physical activity interventions for controlling employee overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2009, 37:340–357. This is systematic review conducted by the Centers for Disease Control’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services that provides a comprehensive evaluation and a pooled estimate of the effectiveness of worksite interventions. It includes excellent discussion of the limitations of current research and questions that should be addressed in future studies.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pratt CA, Fernandez ID and Stevens VJ. Introduction and overview of worksite studies. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007, 15:1 S–3 S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lemon SC ,Pratt CA. Worksite environmental interventions for obesity control: an overview. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2010, 52:S1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goetzel RZ, Baker KM, Short ME, et al. First-year results of an obesity prevention program at The Dow Chemical Company. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2009, 51:125–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Lemon SC, Zapka J, Li W, et al.: Step ahead a worksite obesity prevention trial among hospital employees. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2010, 38:27–38. This is one of the seven NHLBI-sponsored studies funded to evaluate worksite environmental interventions. It is a well-designed randomized controlled trial that found no difference in weight between the intervention and control sites at 2-year follow-up.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • French SA, Hannan PJ, Harnack LJ, et al. Pricing and availability intervention in vending machines at four bus garages. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2010, 52:S29–33. This is one of the 7 NHLBI-sponsored studies funded to evaluate worksite environmental interventions. Included was an innovative intervention to promote sales of healthy food and beverages at worksite vending machines. Results are of sales data only; there was no evaluation of employee weight at the 18-month follow-up.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Meenan RT, Vogt TM, Williams AE, et al. Economic evaluation of a worksite obesity prevention and intervention trial among hotel workers in Hawaii. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2010, 52:S8–13. This is one of the seven NHLBI-sponsored studies funded to evaluate worksite environmental interventions. Employees at hotels in Hawaii were randomized to intensive environmental intervention to prevent obesity. Despite improvements in weight outcomes, intervention program costs far exceeded any cost savings resulting from reduced health care costs, absenteeism, or presenteeism.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Swinburn B ,Egger G. Preventive strategies against weight gain and obesity. Obes.Rev. 2002, 3:289–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dishman RK, Oldenburg B, O’Neal H and Shephard RJ. Worksite physical activity interventions. Am.J.Prev.Med. 1998, 15:344–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tate DF, Wing RR and Winett RA. Using Internet technology to deliver a behavioral weight loss program. JAMA 2001, 285:1172–1177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Petersen R, Sill S, Lu C, et al. Effectiveness of employee internet-based weight management program. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2008, 50:163–171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Soler RE, Leeks KD, Razi S, et al. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion. The assessment of health risks with feedback. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2010, 38:S237–62. This is a comprehensive systematic review of worksite programs that utilize health risk assessments. The major conclusion is that this tool is not effective alone but should be used as part of a broader worksite health promotion program.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benedict MA ,Arterburn D. Worksite-based weight loss programs: a systematic review of recent literature. Am.J.Health Promot. 2008, 22:408–416.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pelletier KR. A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: update VII 2004–2008. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2009, 51:822–837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Proper KI, Koning M, van der Beek AJ, et al. The effectiveness of worksite physical activity programs on physical activity, physical fitness, and health. Clin.J.Sport Med. 2003, 13:106–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferdowsian HR, Barnard ND and Hoover VJ. A multicomponent intervention reduces body weight and cardiovascular risk at a GEICO corporate site. Am.J.Health Promot. 2010, 24:384–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Racette SB, Deusinger SS, Inman CL, et al. Worksite Opportunities for Wellness (WOW): effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors after 1 year. Prev.Med. 2009, 49:108–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Sternfeld B, Block C, Quesenberry CP,Jr, et al. Improving diet and physical activity with ALIVE: a worksite randomized trial. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2009, 36:475–483. This is a randomized controlled trial of a tailored e-mail program to increase employees’ physical activity and improve nutritional behaviors. The intervention group had positive changes in self-reported behaviors. Weight outcomes were not measured.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Dishman RK, DeJoy DM, Wilson MG and Vandenberg RJ. Move to Improve: a randomized workplace trial to increase physical activity. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2009, 36:133–141. This is a group-randomized trial of an environmental physical activity intervention at 16 worksites. Employees at intervention sites had significant improvements in moderate-vigorous physical activity at the end of 12 weeks. Longer-term follow up was not performed.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    • Siegel JM, Prelip ML, Erausquin JT and Kim SA. A worksite obesity intervention: results from a group-randomized trial. Am.J.Public Health 2010, 100:327–333. This is a group-randomized trial at 16 schools of an environmental intervention to promote weight loss and physical activity among employees. Intervention sites had significant decrease in BMI, but outcomes were assessed at the school level and not the individual level.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matson Koffman DM, Goetzel RZ, Anwuri VV, et al. Heart healthy and stroke free: successful business strategies to prevent cardiovascular disease. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2005, 29:113–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Trogdon J, Finkelstein EA, Reyes M and Dietz WH. A return-on-investment simulation model of workplace obesity interventions. J.Occup.Environ.Med. 2009, 51:751–758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Medicine UnitMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations