Laurie A Cluff1, Jason E Lang2, Jennifer R Rineer1, Nkenge H Jones-Jack2, Karen M Strazza1. 1. 1 RTI International, Social Policy, Health, and Economics Research Unit, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 2. 2 Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Work@Health Program to teach employers how to improve worker health using evidence-based strategies. Program goals included (1) determining the best way(s) to deliver employer training, (2) increasing employers' knowledge of workplace health promotion (WHP), and (3) increasing the number of evidence-based WHP interventions at employers' worksites. This study is one of the few to examine the effectiveness of a program designed to train employers how to implement WHP programs. DESIGN: Pre- and posttest design. SETTING: Training via 1 of 3 formats hands-on, online, or blended. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred six individual participants from 173 employers of all sizes. INTERVENTION: Eight-module training curriculum to guide participants through building an evidence-based WHP program, followed by 6 to 10 months of technical assistance. MEASURES: The CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard and knowledge, attitudes, and behavior survey. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, paired t tests, and mixed linear models. RESULTS: Participants' posttraining mean knowledge scores were significantly greater than the pretraining scores (61.1 vs 53.2, P < .001). A year after training, employers had significantly increased the number of evidence-based interventions in place (47.7 vs 35.5, P < .001). Employers' improvements did not significantly differ among the 3 training delivery formats. CONCLUSION: The Work@Health Program provided employers with knowledge to implement WHP interventions. The training and technical assistance provided structure, practical guidance, and tools to assess needs and select, implement, and evaluate interventions.
PURPOSE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Work@Health Program to teach employers how to improve worker health using evidence-based strategies. Program goals included (1) determining the best way(s) to deliver employer training, (2) increasing employers' knowledge of workplace health promotion (WHP), and (3) increasing the number of evidence-based WHP interventions at employers' worksites. This study is one of the few to examine the effectiveness of a program designed to train employers how to implement WHP programs. DESIGN: Pre- and posttest design. SETTING: Training via 1 of 3 formats hands-on, online, or blended. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred six individual participants from 173 employers of all sizes. INTERVENTION: Eight-module training curriculum to guide participants through building an evidence-based WHP program, followed by 6 to 10 months of technical assistance. MEASURES: The CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard and knowledge, attitudes, and behavior survey. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, paired t tests, and mixed linear models. RESULTS:Participants' posttraining mean knowledge scores were significantly greater than the pretraining scores (61.1 vs 53.2, P < .001). A year after training, employers had significantly increased the number of evidence-based interventions in place (47.7 vs 35.5, P < .001). Employers' improvements did not significantly differ among the 3 training delivery formats. CONCLUSION: The Work@Health Program provided employers with knowledge to implement WHP interventions. The training and technical assistance provided structure, practical guidance, and tools to assess needs and select, implement, and evaluate interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
employer training; evidence-based health promotion interventions; training evaluation; training models; workplace health promotion
Authors: Steven G Aldana; David R Anderson; Troy B Adams; R William Whitmer; Ray M Merrill; Victoria George; Jerry Noyce Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Laurie M Anderson; Toby A Quinn; Karen Glanz; Gilbert Ramirez; Leila C Kahwati; Donna B Johnson; Leigh Ramsey Buchanan; W Roodly Archer; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Geetika P Kalra; David L Katz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lu Chen; Peggy A Hannon; Sharon S Laing; Marlana J Kohn; Kathleen Clark; Scott Pritchard; Jeffrey R Harris Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2015 Jan-Feb
Authors: Enid Chung Roemer; Karen B Kent; Daniel K Samoly; Laura M Gaydos; Kristyn J Smith; Amol Agarwal; Dyann M Matson-Koffman; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: M Kaye Kramer; Donald M Molenaar; Vincent C Arena; Elizabeth M Venditti; Rebecca J Meehan; Rachel G Miller; Karl K Vanderwood; Yvonne Eaglehouse; Andrea M Kriska Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jason E Lang; James C Hersey; Karen L Isenberg; Christina M Lynch; Elizabeth Majestic Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2009-03-16 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Jason E Lang; Amanda Mummert; Enid Chung Roemer; Karen Butcher Kent; Dyann Matson Koffman; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2020-03
Authors: Stephanie Mazzucca; Elva M Arredondo; Deanna M Hoelscher; Debra Haire-Joshu; Rachel G Tabak; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Ross C Brownson Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 21.870
Authors: Enid Chung Roemer; Karen B Kent; Ron Z Goetzel; John Krill; Farrah Spellman Williams; Jason E Lang Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.354