Patricia E Hill-Mey1, Ray M Merrill2, Karol L Kumpfer1, Justine Reel1, Beverly Hyatt-Neville3. 1. Department of Health Promotion & Education, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Department of Health Science, College of Life Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. 3. Salt Lake County Department of Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study explores university employee perceptions and under-standing about its Worksite Health Promotion Program (WHPP). The WHPP included a Health Risk Appraisal (HRA), biometric screening, publicity for on-campus health programs and facilities, and health coaching. METHODS: A qualitative design was used based on a grounded theory ap-proach. Four 90 minutes focus groups with 6-8 participants in each were conducted within a two 2 week period among employees, representing fac-ulty/participants, fac-ulty/nonparticipants, staff/participants, and staff/nonparticipants. Responses to questions about motivations, barriers, and perceived health benefits that impacted participation in the WHPP were digi-tally recorded, transcribed and coded for themes. RESULTS: Incentives effectively motivated participation. Biometric screening had the largest impact on behavior change, followed by the information learned from the HRA. However, despite two-thirds of the employees partici-pating in the pro-gram, lack of a full understanding of WHPP benefits and services lowered partici-pation in follow-up services and supplemental pro-grams. CONCLUSIONS: Biometric screening and HRAs effectively motivate program par-ticipation. Communication of benefits and services are important when providing WHPPs.
BACKGROUND: This study explores university employee perceptions and under-standing about its Worksite Health Promotion Program (WHPP). The WHPP included a Health Risk Appraisal (HRA), biometric screening, publicity for on-campus health programs and facilities, and health coaching. METHODS: A qualitative design was used based on a grounded theory ap-proach. Four 90 minutes focus groups with 6-8 participants in each were conducted within a two 2 week period among employees, representing fac-ulty/participants, fac-ulty/nonparticipants, staff/participants, and staff/nonparticipants. Responses to questions about motivations, barriers, and perceived health benefits that impacted participation in the WHPP were digi-tally recorded, transcribed and coded for themes. RESULTS: Incentives effectively motivated participation. Biometric screening had the largest impact on behavior change, followed by the information learned from the HRA. However, despite two-thirds of the employees partici-pating in the pro-gram, lack of a full understanding of WHPP benefits and services lowered partici-pation in follow-up services and supplemental pro-grams. CONCLUSIONS: Biometric screening and HRAs effectively motivate program par-ticipation. Communication of benefits and services are important when providing WHPPs.
Authors: Lindsay J Della; David M DeJoy; Shannon Gwin Mitchell; Ron Z Goetzel; Enid Chung Roemer; Mark G Wilson Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2010 Nov-Dec
Authors: Ray M Merrill; Steven G Aldana; James E Pope; David R Anderson; Carter R Coberley; Jessica J Grossmeier; R William Whitmer Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Rosette J Chakkalakal; Lisa R Connor; Lori A Rolando; Yi Huang; Daniel W Byrne; Bradley M Awalt; Paula W McGown; Muktar H Aliyu; Mary I Yarbrough Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Yun-Kyoung Song; Boyoon Choi; Jung Mi Oh; Arim Kwak; Kyungim Kim Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ayazullah Safi; Matthew Cole; Adam L Kelly; Mohammed Gulrez Zariwala; Natalie C Walker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.614