Evaluation of Get Healthy at Work, a state-wide workplace health promotion program in Australia

Melanie Crane,Beverley Lloyd,Santosh Khanal,Adrian Bauman,Chris Rissel,Erika Bohn-Goldbaum,Anne Grunseit,Devon Indig

doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6493-y

Abstract

BackgroundWorkplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multi-level WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood. This study evaluated Get Healthy at Work (GHaW), a state-wide government-funded WHP in Australia.MethodsA mixed-method design included a longitudinal quasi-experimental survey of businesses registered with GHaW and a comparison group of businesses surveyed over a 12-month period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key contacts and employees of selected intervention group businesses and the service providers of the program were conducted to assess program adoption and adaptation.ResultsPositive business-level changes in workplace culture were observed over time among GHaW businesses compared with the control group. Multilevel regression modelling revealed perceptions that employees were generally healthy (p = 0.045 timeXgroup effect) and that the workplace promoted healthy behaviours (p = 0.004 timeXgroup effect) improved significantly while the control group reported no change in work culture perceptions. Changes in perceptions about work productivity were not observed; however only one third of businesses registered for the program had adopted GHaW during the evaluation period. Qualitative results revealed a number of factors contributing to program adoption: which depended on program delivery (e.g., logistics, technology and communication channels), design features of the program, and organisational factors (primarily business size and previous experience of WHPs).ConclusionsEvaluation of program factors is important to improve program delivery and uptake and to ensure greater scalability. GHaW has the potential to improve workplace health culture, which may lead to better health promoting work environments. These results imply that government can play a central role in enabling prioritisation and incentivising health promotion in the workplace.

Highlights

Workplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multilevel WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood
WHPs differ from workplace health and safety programs in that the latter are injury-focussed while WHPs tend to focus on lifestyle-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) prevention [5]
Quantitative findings In 2014 when Get Healthy at Work (GHaW) was launched there were 696,991 private and public businesses operating in New South Wales (NSW) [3]

Summary

Introduction

Workplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multilevel WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood. Many NCD risk factors are preventable through health promotion initiatives to reduce tobacco use, unhealthy diets and alcohol use, and to promote physical activity in the population [1]. Workplace health programs (WHPs) are coordinated and comprehensive health promotion strategies comprising of policies, environmental supports and activities in the workplace to engage workers in healthy behaviours and facilitate their wellbeing [5]. Benefits to employees of WHPs reported include decreased risk of NCDs and improved health behaviours (e.g., physical activity and nutrition) [6,7,8,9,10]; while benefits to businesses have included improved market value [11] and return on investment [7, 12]. Evidence of the effectiveness of WHPs on productivity is mixed; one recent review [13] was inconclusive while a meta-analysis found limited health and productivity benefits [14]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion