OBJECTIVES: A randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a work-site health promotion program in reducing obesity and the prevalence of cigarette smoking. METHODS:Thirty-two work sites were randomized to treatment or no treatment for 2 years. Treatment consisted of health education classes combined with a payroll-based incentive system. Evaluation was based on cohort and cross-sectional surveys. RESULTS:Of 10,000 total employees in treatment work sites, 2041 and 270 participated in weight control and smoking cessation programs, respectively. Weight losses averaged 4.8 lbs, and 43% of smoking participants quit. Net 2-year reductions in smoking prevalence in treatment vs control work sites were 4.0% and 2.1% in cross-sectional and cohort surveys, respectively. No treatment effect was found for weight. Treatment effects for smoking prevalence and weight were both positively correlated with participation rates in the intervention programs (r = .45 for smoking and r = .55 for weight). CONCLUSIONS: This work-site health promotion program was effective in reducing smoking prevalence at a cost that is believed to make the investment worthwhile.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: A randomized trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a work-site health promotion program in reducing obesity and the prevalence of cigarette smoking. METHODS: Thirty-two work sites were randomized to treatment or no treatment for 2 years. Treatment consisted of health education classes combined with a payroll-based incentive system. Evaluation was based on cohort and cross-sectional surveys. RESULTS: Of 10,000 total employees in treatment work sites, 2041 and 270 participated in weight control and smoking cessation programs, respectively. Weight losses averaged 4.8 lbs, and 43% of smoking participants quit. Net 2-year reductions in smoking prevalence in treatment vs control work sites were 4.0% and 2.1% in cross-sectional and cohort surveys, respectively. No treatment effect was found for weight. Treatment effects for smoking prevalence and weight were both positively correlated with participation rates in the intervention programs (r = .45 for smoking and r = .55 for weight). CONCLUSIONS: This work-site health promotion program was effective in reducing smoking prevalence at a cost that is believed to make the investment worthwhile.
Authors: Deborah J Hennrikus; Robert W Jeffery; Harry A Lando; David M Murray; Kerrin Brelje; Beth Davidann; Judith S Baxter; Dzung Thai; John Vessey; Jane Liu Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: DeAnn Lazovich; David L Parker; Lisa M Brosseau; F Thomas Milton; Siobhan K Dugan; Wei Pan; Lynette Hock Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Susan B Racette; Susan S Deusinger; Cindi L Inman; Tamara L Burlis; Gabrielle R Highstein; Trent D Buskirk; Karen Steger-May; Linda R Peterson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: G Sorensen; B Thompson; K Glanz; Z Feng; S Kinne; C DiClemente; K Emmons; J Heimendinger; C Probart; E Lichtenstein Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Simone A French; Lisa J Harnack; Peter J Hannan; Nathan R Mitchell; Anne F Gerlach; Traci L Toomey Journal: Prev Med Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 4.018