Ann Marie Dale1,2, Chris Enke3, Skye Buckner-Petty1, James Aaron Hipp4, Christine Marx5, Jaime Strickland1, Bradley Evanoff1. 1. 1 Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. 2. 2 Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. 3. 3 Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. 4. 4 Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the availability and utilization of workplace health supports by employees of small and large-sized employers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, telephone-based interviews collected on 16 workplace health supports for physical activity and diet. SETTING: Participants selected by random-digit-dialing from 4 metropolitan areas of Missouri employees from 2012 to 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand fifteen working adults. METHODS: We explored the availability and use of supports by employer size (<100 employees vs ≥100 employees), accounting for industry and personal factors. ANALYSIS: We examined distributions and Poisson regression models of availability for supports by employer size and by industry and use of supports by employer size and personal factors. RESULTS: One-fifth of the 1796 employees were employed by small-sized employers. Large employers offered more supports than small (mean: 6 vs 3), but a higher proportion of employees of small-sized employers used supports when available (59% vs 47%). The differences in offered supports between industries were not due to size alone. In regard to the determinants of participation, the personal factors of gender, age, weight, and income were associated with participation in 10 of the supports. Employer size was also associated with participation in 10 supports. No associations were found between personal factors or workplace size and participation for 3 supports. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of employees working for smaller businesses use available supports than employees of larger businesses. Supports offered by employers should target the needs and interests of the workforce, particularly for the higher risk low-income employees.
PURPOSE: To explore the availability and utilization of workplace health supports by employees of small and large-sized employers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, telephone-based interviews collected on 16 workplace health supports for physical activity and diet. SETTING:Participants selected by random-digit-dialing from 4 metropolitan areas of Missouri employees from 2012 to 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand fifteen working adults. METHODS: We explored the availability and use of supports by employer size (<100 employees vs ≥100 employees), accounting for industry and personal factors. ANALYSIS: We examined distributions and Poisson regression models of availability for supports by employer size and by industry and use of supports by employer size and personal factors. RESULTS: One-fifth of the 1796 employees were employed by small-sized employers. Large employers offered more supports than small (mean: 6 vs 3), but a higher proportion of employees of small-sized employers used supports when available (59% vs 47%). The differences in offered supports between industries were not due to size alone. In regard to the determinants of participation, the personal factors of gender, age, weight, and income were associated with participation in 10 of the supports. Employer size was also associated with participation in 10 supports. No associations were found between personal factors or workplace size and participation for 3 supports. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of employees working for smaller businesses use available supports than employees of larger businesses. Supports offered by employers should target the needs and interests of the workforce, particularly for the higher risk low-income employees.
Entities:
Keywords:
health behaviors; health disparities; small businesses; supportive environments; workplace
Authors: David M Dejoy; Mark G Wilson; Ron Z Goetzel; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Shaohung Wang; Kristin M Baker; Heather M Bowen; Karen J Tully Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Gary Claxton; Matthew Rae; Nirmita Panchal; Anthony Damico; Heidi Whitmore; Nathan Bostick; Kevin Kenward Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Lea Maes; Eveline Van Cauwenberghe; Wendy Van Lippevelde; Heleen Spittaels; Ellen De Pauw; Jean-Michel Oppert; Frank J Van Lenthe; Johannes Brug; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2011-07-23 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Jaime R Strickland; Anna M Kinghorn; Bradley A Evanoff; Ann Marie Dale Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nyssa Hadgraft; Elisabeth Winkler; Ana D Goode; Lynn Gunning; David W Dunstan; Neville Owen; Takemi Sugiyama; Genevieve N Healy Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2021-10-25
Authors: Zoltán Tánczos; Borbála Bernadett Zala; Zsolt Szakály; László Tóth; József Bognár Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Andrea Schaller; Gabriele Fohr; Carina Hoffmann; Gerrit Stassen; Bert Droste-Franke Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 3.390