Judy Kruger1, Michelle M Yore, Deborah R Bauer, Harold W Kohl. 1. Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K-46, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, USA. jkruger@cdc.gov
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess employees'attitudes toward potential barriers to and incentives for their likely use of worksite health promotion services. METHODS: Data from the 2004 HealthStyles Survey, a volunteer mail survey, were used to examine selected barriers to, incentives for, and potential use of worksite health promotion programs among adults employed full-time or part-time outside the home (n = 2337). RESULTS: Respondents were 72.7% white and 52.1 % female; 36.5 % were college graduates, 30.7% had a body mass index of at least 30, and 35.6% were regularly active. The most common reported barriers to use of worksite services were no time during the workday (42.5 %) and no time before or after work (39.4%). More than 70% of employees responded that the following incentives would promote their interest in participating in a free worksite wellness program: convenient time, convenient location, and employer-provided paid time off during the workday. Preferred health promotion services reported by respondents were fitness centers (80.6%), weight loss programs (67.1 %), and on-site exercise classes (55.2 %). Policy practices of paid time to exercise at work and healthy vending or cafeteria food choices were preferred by almost 80% of employees. CONCLUSIONS: These HealthStyles Survey data, in combination with needs data from an employer's own workforce, may help employers design wellness programs to include features that attract employees.
PURPOSE: To assess employees'attitudes toward potential barriers to and incentives for their likely use of worksite health promotion services. METHODS: Data from the 2004 HealthStyles Survey, a volunteer mail survey, were used to examine selected barriers to, incentives for, and potential use of worksite health promotion programs among adults employed full-time or part-time outside the home (n = 2337). RESULTS: Respondents were 72.7% white and 52.1 % female; 36.5 % were college graduates, 30.7% had a body mass index of at least 30, and 35.6% were regularly active. The most common reported barriers to use of worksite services were no time during the workday (42.5 %) and no time before or after work (39.4%). More than 70% of employees responded that the following incentives would promote their interest in participating in a free worksite wellness program: convenient time, convenient location, and employer-provided paid time off during the workday. Preferred health promotion services reported by respondents were fitness centers (80.6%), weight loss programs (67.1 %), and on-site exercise classes (55.2 %). Policy practices of paid time to exercise at work and healthy vending or cafeteria food choices were preferred by almost 80% of employees. CONCLUSIONS: These HealthStyles Survey data, in combination with needs data from an employer's own workforce, may help employers design wellness programs to include features that attract employees.
Authors: Dina Hafez; Allison Fedewa; Margaret Moran; Matthew O'Brien; Ronald Ackermann; Jeffrey T Kullgren Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Georgina Mayela Núñez Rocha; Ana María Salinas Martínez; Sandra Angélica Ramírez Hernández; María Eugenia Garza Elizondo Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Glorian Sorensen; Paul Landsbergis; Leslie Hammer; Benjamin C Amick; Laura Linnan; Antronette Yancey; Laura S Welch; Ron Z Goetzel; Kelly M Flannery; Charlotte Pratt Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Leslie A MacDonald; Stephen Bertke; Misty J Hein; Suzanne Judd; Sherry Baron; Robert Merritt; Virginia J Howard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jorien E Strijk; Karin I Proper; Allard J van der Beek; Willem van Mechelen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Patricia E Hill-Mey; Karol L Kumpfer; Ray M Merrill; Justine Reel; Beverly Hyatt-Neville; Glenn E Richardson Journal: J Educ Health Promot Date: 2015-03-26
Authors: Lars Louis Andersen; Emil Sundstrup; Marianne Boysen; Markus Due Jakobsen; Ole Steen Mortensen; Roger Persson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Marieke F van Wier; J Caroline Dekkers; Judith E Bosmans; Martijn W Heymans; Ingrid Jm Hendriksen; Nicolaas P Pronk; Willem van Mechelen; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 6.457