Development and Fidelity Testing of the Test@Work Digital Toolkit for Employers on Workplace Health Checks and Opt-In HIV Testing.

Holly Blake,Sarah Somerset,Catrin Evans

doi:10.3390/ijerph17010379

Abstract

Background: In the UK, few employers offer general health checks for employees, and opt-in HIV testing is rarely included. There is a need to provide evidence-based guidance and support for employers around health checks and HIV testing in the workplace. An Agile approach was used to develop and evaluate a digital toolkit to facilitate employers’ understanding about workplace health screening. Methods: The Test@Work toolkit development included an online survey (STAGE 1: n = 201), stakeholder consultation (STAGE 2: n = 19), expert peer review (STAGE 3: n = 24), and pilot testing (STAGE 4: n = 20). The toolkit includes employer guidance on workplace health promotion, workplace health screening, and confidential opt-in HIV testing with signposting to resources. Pilot testing included assessment of fidelity (delivery and engagement) and implementation qualities (attitudes, resources, practicality, acceptability, usability and cost). Results: STAGE 1: The vast majority of respondents would consider offering general health checks in the workplace that included confidential opt-in HIV testing, and this view was broadly comparable across organisation types (n = 201; public: 87.8%; private: 89.7%; third: 87.1%). STAGES 2 and 3: Stakeholders highlighted essential content considerations: (1) inclusion of the business case for workplace health initiatives, (2) clear pathways to employer responsibilities, and (3) presenting HIV-related information alongside other areas of health. With regards presentation, stakeholders proposed that the toolkit should be concise, with clear signposting and be hosted on a trusted portal. STAGE 4: Employers were satisfied with the toolkit content, usability and utility. The toolkit had high fidelity with regards to delivery and employer engagement. Assessment of implementation qualities showed high usability and practicality, with low perceived burden for completion and acceptable cost implications. Very few resource challenges were reported, and the toolkit was considered to be appropriate for any type of organisation, irrespective of size or resources. Conclusions: Employers perceived the Test@Work toolkit to be useful, meaningful and appropriate for their needs. This digital resource could be used to support employers to engage with health screening and opt-in HIV testing within the context of workplace health promotion.

Highlights

In the United Kingdom (UK), few employers offer general health checks for employees, and opt-in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing is rarely included
Two further items required responses on: (b) whether employers would be interested in offering general health checks in the workplace that included HIV testing; and, (c) what would be the three most important things that would need to be included in employer guidance on this area?
It was generally felt that HIV testing should only be included as an optional element of a more general workplace health check offering a range of health tests; these was seen to be important both to engage employers, reduce fear often associated with

Summary

Introduction

In the UK, few employers offer general health checks for employees, and opt-in HIV testing is rarely included. There is a need to provide evidence-based guidance and support for employers around health checks and HIV testing in the workplace. An Agile approach was used to develop and evaluate a digital toolkit to facilitate employers’ understanding about workplace health screening. Methods: The Test@Work toolkit development included an online survey The toolkit includes employer guidance on workplace health promotion, workplace health screening, and confidential opt-in HIV testing with signposting to resources. Results: STAGE 1: The vast majority of respondents would consider offering general health checks in the workplace that included confidential opt-in HIV testing, and this view was broadly comparable across organisation types (n = 201; public: 87.8%; private: 89.7%; third: 87.1%). Public Health 2020, 17, 379; doi:10.3390/ijerph17010379 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion