Laura A Linnan1, Laurie Cluff2, Jason E Lang3, Michael Penne4, Maija S Leff1. 1. 1 Department of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. 2 Social Policy, Health, & Economics Research Unit, RTI International, Holly Springs, NC, USA. 3. 3 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. 4 Behavioral Statistics Program, RTI International, Holly Springs, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a nationally representative snapshot of workplace health promotion (WHP) and protection practices among United States worksites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-report Workplace Health in America (WHA) Survey between November 2016 and September 2017. SETTING: National. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of US worksites with ≥10 employees, stratified by region, size, and North American Industrial Classification System sector. MEASURES: Workplace health promotion programs, program administration, evidence-based strategies, health screenings, disease management, incentives, work-life policies, implementation barriers, and occupational safety and health (OSH). ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, t tests, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among eligible worksites, 10.1% (n = 3109) responded, 2843 retained in final sample, and 46.1% offered some type of WHP program. The proportion of comparable worksites with comprehensive programs (as defined in Healthy People 2010) rose from 6.9% in 2004 to 17.1% in 2017 ( P < .001). Occupational safety and health programs were more prevalent than WHP programs, and 83.5% of all worksites had an individual responsible for employee safety, while only 72.2% of those with a WHP program had an individual responsible for it. Smaller worksites were less likely than larger to offer most programs. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of WHP programs has increased but remains low across most health programs; few worksites have comprehensive programs. Smaller worksites have persistent deficits and require targeted approaches; integrated OSH and WHP efforts may help. Ongoing monitoring using the WHA Survey benchmarks OSH and WHP in US worksites, updates estimates from previous surveys, and identifies gaps in research and practice.
PURPOSE: To provide a nationally representative snapshot of workplace health promotion (WHP) and protection practices among United States worksites. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, self-report Workplace Health in America (WHA) Survey between November 2016 and September 2017. SETTING: National. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of US worksites with ≥10 employees, stratified by region, size, and North American Industrial Classification System sector. MEASURES: Workplace health promotion programs, program administration, evidence-based strategies, health screenings, disease management, incentives, work-life policies, implementation barriers, and occupational safety and health (OSH). ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, t tests, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Among eligible worksites, 10.1% (n = 3109) responded, 2843 retained in final sample, and 46.1% offered some type of WHP program. The proportion of comparable worksites with comprehensive programs (as defined in Healthy People 2010) rose from 6.9% in 2004 to 17.1% in 2017 ( P < .001). Occupational safety and health programs were more prevalent than WHP programs, and 83.5% of all worksites had an individual responsible for employee safety, while only 72.2% of those with a WHP program had an individual responsible for it. Smaller worksites were less likely than larger to offer most programs. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of WHP programs has increased but remains low across most health programs; few worksites have comprehensive programs. Smaller worksites have persistent deficits and require targeted approaches; integrated OSH and WHP efforts may help. Ongoing monitoring using the WHA Survey benchmarks OSH and WHP in US worksites, updates estimates from previous surveys, and identifies gaps in research and practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; cross-sectional survey; employer surveys; occupational safety and health; public health surveillance; surveys and questionnaires; workplace health promotion; work–life balance
Authors: Katherine McCleary; Ron Z Goetzel; Enid Chung Roemer; Jeff Berko; Karen Kent; Hector De La Torre Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Laura Linnan; Mike Bowling; Jennifer Childress; Garry Lindsay; Carter Blakey; Stephanie Pronk; Sharon Wieker; Penelope Royall Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-11-29 Impact factor: 9.308
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: Amy Meador; Jason E Lang; Whitney D Davis; Nkenge H Jones-Jack; Qaiser Mukhtar; Hua Lu; Sushama D Acharya; Meg E Molloy Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Meagan C Brown; Jeffrey R Harris; Kristen Hammerback; Marlana J Kohn; Amanda T Parrish; Gary K Chan; India J Ornelas; Christian D Helfrich; Peggy A Hannon Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2020-02-20
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: Enid Chung Roemer; Karen B Kent; Amanda Mummert; Katherine McCleary; Jacquelyn B Palmer; Jason E Lang; Dyann M Matson Koffman; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Jeffrey R Harris; Christine M Kava; Kwun C Gary Chan; Marlana J Kohn; Kristen Hammerback; Amanda T Parrish; Christian D Helfrich; Peggy A Hannon Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2022-01-04