PURPOSE: Study goals were to (1) understand the attitudes of employees in low-wage industries toward workplace health promotion, including views on appropriateness of employer involvement in employee health and level of interest in workplace health promotion overall and in specific programs, and (2) determine the potential for extending workplace health promotion to spouses and partners of these employees. APPROACH: The study used 42 interviews of 60 to 90 minutes. SETTING: Interviews were conducted with couples (married or living together) in the Seattle/King County metropolitan area of Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants were forty-two couples with one or more members working in one of five low-wage industries: accommodation/food services, education, health care/social assistance, manufacturing, and retail trade. METHOD: The study employed qualitative analysis of interview transcripts using grounded theory to identify themes. RESULTS: Employees consider workplace health promotion both appropriate and desirable and believe it benefits employers through increased productivity and morale. Most have little personal experience with it and doubt their employers would prioritize employee health. Employees are most interested in efforts focused on nutrition and physical activity. Both employees and their partners support extending workplace health promotion to include partners. CONCLUSION: Employees and their partners are interested in workplace health promotion if it addresses behaviors they care about. Concern over employer involvement in their personal health decisions is minimal; instead, employees view employer interest in their health as a sign that they are valued.
PURPOSE: Study goals were to (1) understand the attitudes of employees in low-wage industries toward workplace health promotion, including views on appropriateness of employer involvement in employee health and level of interest in workplace health promotion overall and in specific programs, and (2) determine the potential for extending workplace health promotion to spouses and partners of these employees. APPROACH: The study used 42 interviews of 60 to 90 minutes. SETTING: Interviews were conducted with couples (married or living together) in the Seattle/King County metropolitan area of Washington State. PARTICIPANTS: Study participants were forty-two couples with one or more members working in one of five low-wage industries: accommodation/food services, education, health care/social assistance, manufacturing, and retail trade. METHOD: The study employed qualitative analysis of interview transcripts using grounded theory to identify themes. RESULTS: Employees consider workplace health promotion both appropriate and desirable and believe it benefits employers through increased productivity and morale. Most have little personal experience with it and doubt their employers would prioritize employee health. Employees are most interested in efforts focused on nutrition and physical activity. Both employees and their partners support extending workplace health promotion to include partners. CONCLUSION: Employees and their partners are interested in workplace health promotion if it addresses behaviors they care about. Concern over employer involvement in their personal health decisions is minimal; instead, employees view employer interest in their health as a sign that they are valued.
Entities:
Keywords:
Domestic Partners; Health Promotion; Health focus: fitness/physical activity, nutrition, weight control, smoking control; Manuscript format: research; Outcome measure: behavioral; Prevention Research; Research purpose: descriptive; Setting: workplace; Spouses; Strategy: skill building/behavioral change, policy, culture change; Study design: qualitative; Workplace
Authors: Ronald Loeppke; Michael Taitel; Vince Haufle; Thomas Parry; Ronald C Kessler; Kimberly Jinnett Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jon R Gabel; Heidi Whitmore; Jeremy Pickreign; Christine C Ferguson; Anjali Jain; Shova K C; Hilary Scherer Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Peggy A Hannon; Kristen Hammerback; Marlana J Kohn; Christine M Kava; Kwun C Gary Chan; Amanda T Parrish; Claire Allen; Christian D Helfrich; Caitlin Mayotte; Shirley A Beresford; Jeffrey R Harris Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Claire L Allen; Kristen Hammerback; Jeffrey R Harris; Peggy A Hannon; Amanda T Parrish Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Rachel G Tabak; Jaime R Strickland; Richard I Stein; Hank Dart; Graham A Colditz; Bridget Kirk; Ann Marie Dale; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 3.295