Behavioral Risk Factor and Illness Day Changes with Workplace Health Promotion: Two-Year Results

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Purpose.: The impact of a workplace health promotion program was evaluated to determine changes in the number and level of seven behavioral risks and self-reported illness days. Design.: The study employed a pretest/posttest intervention group (N=7,178) with a two-year follow-up and a time-lagged, nonequivalent comparison group (N=7,101). Setting.: The study population was drawn from a large manufacturing company with more than 100 United States locations. Subjects.: Approximately one half of the study population was 40 years of age or older, 75 % were males, 90 % were white, and about 40 % were hourly manufacturing employees. Intervention.: The program consisted of 1) training and support of coordinators; 2) health risk appraisals; 3) on-site classes, safety meetings, and self-help options; 4) environmental changes, e.g., smoking policy, cafeteria offerings, and blood pressure machines; and 5) recognition. Measures.: A 38-item health appraisal included self-report of illness days and behavioral risks, as well as information from company physical examinations. Results.: Both the number and the level of behavioral risk factors improved over two years. The proportion of employees with three or more risk factors decreased by 14% (p<.001). The number of self-reported illness days in this group decreased by 12% during the same period (p<.001). No change in illness days was observed in the group with fewer than three risk factors. Risk levels improved (range = 4.5% to 79%) for six of seven factors among high-risk individuals. Conclusions.: This intervention appears to have had a positive impact on the number and level of behavioral risk factors; most of the improvement occurred among high-risk participants. The extent to which this study's results can be generalized to other populations is limited by several methodological limitations including several key variables are self-reported, a time-lagged rather than concurrent comparison group was used, the intervention group response rate was low, and the intervention group differed from the comparison group on four of five demographic variables.