LifeWorks@TURCK: A Best Practice Case Study on Workplace Well-being Program Design

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES Acsms Health & Fitness Journal Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.1249/fit.0000000000000120
N. Pronk, D. Lagerstrøm, J. Haws
{"title":"LifeWorks@TURCK: A Best Practice Case Study on Workplace Well-being Program Design","authors":"N. Pronk, D. Lagerstrøm, J. Haws","doi":"10.1249/fit.0000000000000120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Health and education are the most important factors related to human capital. They form the basis of an individual’s and a population’s productivity and associate population health as a key ingredient to poverty reduction, economic growth, and long-term economic development of a region or entire societies (9,15). As such, both factors are extremely important to business and industry because they prepare the future workforce and (a) optimize the performance of current employees atwork and in their home life, (b) positively influence people’s lives in general, and (c) reduce overdependency on medical care resources. It is therefore not surprising that during times of ever-increasing medical care expenditures, ofwhichmuch of the burden is borne by business and industry, employers look to workplace health protection and promotion to better manage their costs (17). Generally speaking, workplace health programs have proven effective for health improvement (6,10,14,16). Literature reviews also support the notion thatworkplace wellness programs can generate savings in medical care expenditures and reduce productivity loss (1). However, criticism of these claims has surfaced in recent years as several analyses indicate that the savings may not be as robust as reported (2,3). So, where does this inconsistent view of results come from? Why do conflicting results emerge from systematic reviews conducted by highly credible sources? Arguably, not all programs are designed to produce results. Whereas workplace wellness programs have become quite common with the vast majority of companies (77%) in the United States (3), the most recent National Worksite Health Promotion survey points out that only 6.9% of companies have programs that may be considered comprehensive in design (8). Program design matters in producing results, and programs designed according to best practice principles tend to produce better outcomes (5,12). Therefore, a differentiation should bemade betweenwell-designed programs and those that do not adhere to well-established known practices related to successful programs.","PeriodicalId":50908,"journal":{"name":"Acsms Health & Fitness Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1249/fit.0000000000000120","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acsms Health & Fitness Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/fit.0000000000000120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Health and education are the most important factors related to human capital. They form the basis of an individual’s and a population’s productivity and associate population health as a key ingredient to poverty reduction, economic growth, and long-term economic development of a region or entire societies (9,15). As such, both factors are extremely important to business and industry because they prepare the future workforce and (a) optimize the performance of current employees atwork and in their home life, (b) positively influence people’s lives in general, and (c) reduce overdependency on medical care resources. It is therefore not surprising that during times of ever-increasing medical care expenditures, ofwhichmuch of the burden is borne by business and industry, employers look to workplace health protection and promotion to better manage their costs (17). Generally speaking, workplace health programs have proven effective for health improvement (6,10,14,16). Literature reviews also support the notion thatworkplace wellness programs can generate savings in medical care expenditures and reduce productivity loss (1). However, criticism of these claims has surfaced in recent years as several analyses indicate that the savings may not be as robust as reported (2,3). So, where does this inconsistent view of results come from? Why do conflicting results emerge from systematic reviews conducted by highly credible sources? Arguably, not all programs are designed to produce results. Whereas workplace wellness programs have become quite common with the vast majority of companies (77%) in the United States (3), the most recent National Worksite Health Promotion survey points out that only 6.9% of companies have programs that may be considered comprehensive in design (8). Program design matters in producing results, and programs designed according to best practice principles tend to produce better outcomes (5,12). Therefore, a differentiation should bemade betweenwell-designed programs and those that do not adhere to well-established known practices related to successful programs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
LifeWorks@TURCK:工作场所福利计划设计的最佳实践案例研究
健康和教育是与人力资本有关的最重要因素。它们构成个人和人口生产力的基础,并将人口健康作为一个区域或整个社会减贫、经济增长和长期经济发展的关键因素(9,15)。因此,这两个因素对商业和工业都非常重要,因为它们为未来的劳动力做好准备,(a)优化当前员工在工作和家庭生活中的表现,(b)对人们的生活产生积极影响,(c)减少对医疗资源的过度依赖。因此,在医疗保健支出不断增加的时期(其中大部分负担由商业和工业承担),雇主希望通过工作场所的健康保护和促进来更好地管理其成本,这并不奇怪(17)。一般来说,工作场所的健康方案已被证明是有效的健康改善(6,10,14,16)。文献综述也支持这样一种观点,即工作场所健康计划可以节省医疗保健支出并减少生产力损失(1)。然而,近年来对这些说法的批评已经浮出水面,因为一些分析表明,节省可能不像报道的那样强劲(2,3)。那么,这种对结果不一致的看法是从哪里来的呢?为什么由高度可信的来源进行的系统评价会产生相互矛盾的结果?可以说,并不是所有的项目都是为了产生结果而设计的。尽管工作场所健康计划在美国绝大多数公司(77%)中已经变得相当普遍(3),但最近的全国工作场所健康促进调查指出,只有6.9%的公司拥有可以被认为是全面设计的计划(8)。计划设计对产生结果很重要,根据最佳实践原则设计的计划往往会产生更好的结果(5,12)。因此,应该区分设计良好的项目和那些没有遵循与成功项目相关的公认实践的项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acsms Health & Fitness Journal
Acsms Health & Fitness Journal 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
13.30%
发文量
104
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ACSM''s Health & Fitness Journal®, an official publication from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), is written to fulfill the information needs of fitness instructors, personal trainers, exercise leaders, program managers, and other front-line health and fitness professionals. Its mission is to promote and distribute accurate, unbiased, and authoritative information on health and fitness. The journal includes peer-reviewed features along with various topical columns to cover all aspects of exercise science and nutrition research, with components of ACSM certification workshops, current topics of interest to the fitness industry, and continuing education credit opportunities.
期刊最新文献
Physical Inactivity in Childhood from Preschool to Adolescence. The legal aspects: Beyond Medical Emergencies Gluten-Free Diets and Exercise Performance Technology as a Tool to Encourage Young Adults to Sleep and Eat Healthy AFFECT-BASED EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1