Emily Stiehl1, Namrata Shivaprakash2, Esther Thatcher3, India J Ornelas4, Shawn Kneipp5, Sherry L Baron6, Naoko Muramatsu7. 1. 1 Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. 2 Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. 3 University of Virginia Health System, University Medical Associates Clinic, Charlottesville, VA, USA. 4. 4 Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. 5 Health Care Environments Division, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 6. 6 Queens College, Barry Commoner Center for Health and the Environment, Flushing, NY, USA. 7. 7 School of Public Health and Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine: (1) What research has been done on health promotion interventions for low-wage workers and (2) what factors are associated with effective low-wage workers' health promotion programs. DATA SOURCE: This review includes articles from PubMed and PsychINFO published in or before July 2016. Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: The search yielded 130 unique articles, 35 met the inclusion criteria: (1) being conducted in the United States, (2) including an intervention or empirical data around health promotion among adult low-wage workers, and (3) measuring changes in low-wage worker health. DATA EXTRACTION: Central features of the selected studies were extracted, including the theoretical foundation; study design; health promotion intervention content and delivery format; intervention-targeted outcomes; sample characteristics; and work, occupational, and industry characteristics. DATA ANALYSIS: Consistent with a scoping review, we used a descriptive, content analysis approach to analyze extracted data. All authors agreed upon emergent themes and 2 authors independently coded data extracted from each article. RESULTS: The results suggest that the research on low-wage workers' health promotion is limited, but increasing, and that low-wage workers have limited access to and utilization of worksite health promotion programs. CONCLUSION: Workplace health promotion programs could have a positive effect on low-wage workers, but more work is needed to understand how to expand access, what drives participation, and which delivery mechanisms are most effective.
OBJECTIVE: To determine: (1) What research has been done on health promotion interventions for low-wage workers and (2) what factors are associated with effective low-wage workers' health promotion programs. DATA SOURCE: This review includes articles from PubMed and PsychINFO published in or before July 2016. Study Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: The search yielded 130 unique articles, 35 met the inclusion criteria: (1) being conducted in the United States, (2) including an intervention or empirical data around health promotion among adult low-wage workers, and (3) measuring changes in low-wage worker health. DATA EXTRACTION: Central features of the selected studies were extracted, including the theoretical foundation; study design; health promotion intervention content and delivery format; intervention-targeted outcomes; sample characteristics; and work, occupational, and industry characteristics. DATA ANALYSIS: Consistent with a scoping review, we used a descriptive, content analysis approach to analyze extracted data. All authors agreed upon emergent themes and 2 authors independently coded data extracted from each article. RESULTS: The results suggest that the research on low-wage workers' health promotion is limited, but increasing, and that low-wage workers have limited access to and utilization of worksite health promotion programs. CONCLUSION: Workplace health promotion programs could have a positive effect on low-wage workers, but more work is needed to understand how to expand access, what drives participation, and which delivery mechanisms are most effective.
Entities:
Keywords:
low income; low-wage workers; scoping literature review; workplace; workplace health promotion
Authors: Luuk H Engbers; Mireille N M van Poppel; Marijke J M Chin A Paw; Willem van Mechelen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: G Sorensen; A Stoddard; M K Hunt; J R Hebert; J K Ockene; J S Avrunin; J Himmelstein; S K Hammond Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Diana J Burgess; Steven S Fu; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Barbara A Clothier; Jennifer Ricards; Rachel Widome; Michelle van Ryn Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Sharon S Laing; Peggy A Hannon; Amber Talburt; Sara Kimpe; Barbara Williams; Jeffrey R Harris Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 2.830
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: Regina Lutz; Wolfgang Fischmann; Hans Drexler; Elisabeth Nöhammer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Richard I Stein; Jaime R Strickland; Rachel G Tabak; Ann Marie Dale; Graham A Colditz; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-01-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Cody D Neshteruk; Erik Willis; Falon Smith; Amber E Vaughn; Anna H Grummon; Maihan B Vu; Dianne S Ward; Laura Linnan Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Laura A Linnan; Amber E Vaughn; Falon T Smith; Philip Westgate; Derek Hales; Gabriela Arandia; Cody Neshteruk; Erik Willis; Dianne S Ward Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 6.457