Abstract
Organizations typically deploy multiple health and wellbeing practices in an overall program. We explore whether practices in workplace health and wellbeing programs cohere around a small number of archetypal categories or whether differences between organizations are better explained by a continuum. We also examine whether adopting multiple practices predicts subsequent changes in health and wellbeing. Using survey data from 146 organizations, we found differences between organizations were best characterized by a continuum ranging from less to more extensive adoption of practices. Using two-wave multilevel survey data at both individual and organizational levels (N = 6968 individuals, N = 58 organizations), we found that, in organizations that adopt a wider range of health and wellbeing practices, workers with poor baseline psychological wellbeing were more likely to report subsequent improvements in wellbeing and workers who reported good physical health at baseline were less likely to report experiencing poor health at follow-up. We found no evidence that adopting multiple health and wellbeing practices buffered the impact of individuals’ workplace psychosocial hazards on physical health or psychological wellbeing.
Highlights
Workplace health and wellbeing programs encompass a range of different practices, including workplace health promotion, provision of self-regulatory skills to manage exposure to risk, rehabilitation, return to work and management of chronic conditions [1,2,3]
We have two competing hypotheses, namely that differences between organizations in their health and wellbeing programs are better represented by a small number of categories (H1a) or by a single continuum (H1b)
Decisions on model retention were guided by the following criteria: Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Vuong–Lo–Mendell–Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio (VLMR), bootstrapped likelihood ratio (BLRT), entropy values and category size
Summary
Workplace health and wellbeing programs encompass a range of different practices, including workplace health promotion, provision of self-regulatory skills to manage exposure to risk (e.g., resilience training), rehabilitation, return to work and management of chronic conditions [1,2,3]. It is recommended that multiple practices should be used in the management of workplace health and wellbeing. As far as we are aware, only two cross-sectional studies to date have examined the effects of using multiple practices together [11,12]. Both found associations between the adoption of multiple practices on the one hand and perceptions of program effectiveness, reports of practices use [11] and perceptions of others’ wellbeing in the organization [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
