Suchergebnisse

Purpose: Programs designed to sustainably improve employee well-being are urgently needed but insufficiently researched. This study evaluates the long-term effectiveness of a commercial well-being intervention in a worksite setting. Design: A pre/postintervention repeated analysis with follow-up at 6, 12, and 18 months. Setting: Office-based worksites (for-profit, nonprofit, and mixed work-type; n = 8). Participants: One hundred sixty-three employees with a mean age of 47 (11) years (57% female). Intervention: A 2.5-day group-based behavioral program emphasizing vitality and purpose in life (PiL). Measures: Rand Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) with a focus on vitality (primary outcome), Ryff PiL Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Profile of Mood States, Rand MOS Sleep Scale, physical activity, body weight, blood pressure, and blood measures for glucose and lipids at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. Analysis: General linear models with repeated measures for mean values at baseline and follow-up. Results: At 18-month follow-up, sustained improvements were observed for vitality, general health, and mental health domains of SF-36 and PiL ( P < .001 for all measures). Sleep, mood, vigor, physical activity, and blood pressure were also improved at 18 months ( P < .05 for all measures). Conclusions: An intensive 2.5-day intervention showed sustained improvement in employee quality of life, PiL, and other measures of well-being over 18 months.

Purpose: Programs focused on employee well-being have gained momentum in recent years, but few have been rigorously evaluated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of an intervention designed to enhance vitality and purpose in life by assessing changes in employee quality of life (QoL) and health-related behaviors. Design: A worksite-based randomized controlled trial. Setting: Twelve eligible worksites (8 randomized to the intervention group [IG] and 4 to the wait-listed control group [CG]). Participants: Employees (n = 240) at the randomized worksites. Intervention: A 2.5-day group-based behavioral intervention. Measures: Rand Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) vitality and QoL measures, Ryff Purpose in Life Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies questionnaire for depression, MOS sleep, body weight, physical activity, diet quality, and blood measures for glucose and lipids (which were used to calculate a cardiometabolic risk score) obtained at baseline and 6 months. Analysis: General linear mixed models were used to compare least squares means or prevalence differences in outcomes between IG and CG participants. Results: As compared to CG, IG had a significantly higher mean 6-month change on the SF-36 vitality scale ( P = .003) and scored in the highest categories for 5 of the remaining 7 SF-36 domains: general health ( P = .014), mental health ( P = .027), absence of role limitations due to physical problems ( P = .026), and social functioning ( P = .007). The IG also had greater improvements in purpose in life ( P < .001) and sleep quality (index I, P = .024; index II, P = .021). No statistically significant changes were observed for weight, diet, physical activity, or cardiometabolic risk factors. Conclusion: An intensive 2.5-day intervention showed improvement in employee QoL and well-being over 6 months.

Purpose:This study tested relationships between health and well-being best practices and 3 types of outcomes.Design:A cross-sectional design used data from the HERO Scorecard Benchmark Database.Setting:Data were voluntarily provided by employers who submitted web-based survey responses.Sample:Analyses were limited to 812 organizations that completed the HERO Scorecard between January 12, 2015 and October 2, 2017.Measures:Independent variables included organizational and leadership support, program comprehensiveness, program integration, and incentives. Dependent variables included participation rates, health and medical cost impact, and perceptions of organizational support.Analysis:Three structural equation models were developed to investigate the relationships among study variables.Results:Model sample size varied based on organizationally reported outcomes. All models fit the data well (comparative fit index > 0.96). Organizational and leadership support was the strongest predictor ( P < .05) of participation (n = 276 organizations), impact (n = 160 organizations), and perceived organizational support (n = 143 organizations). Incentives predicted participation in health assessment and biometric screening ( P < .05). Program comprehensiveness and program integration were not significant predictors ( P > .05) in any of the models.Conclusion:Organizational and leadership support practices are essential to produce participation, health and medical cost impact, and perceptions of organizational support. While incentives influence participation, they are likely insufficient to yield downstream outcomes. The overall study design limits the ability to make causal inferences from the data.