Survey of Employer Worksite Wellness
Activities and Health Promotion Programming
Cheryl Larson, Midwest Business Group on Health,
John Coumbe-Lilley PhD & Jessica Backous, University of Illinois at Chicago
Table 1. COMPANIES COMPLETING SELF ASSESSMENT
Employee Size
Industry
City/State
Male %/
Female %
1
>25,000
Manufacturing
Moline IL
65/35
2
>25,000
Health Care and Social Assistance
Oak Brook IL
22/78
3
>25,000
Retail Trade
Deerfield IL
38/62
4
>25,000
Health Care and Social Assistance
Onalaska WI
30/70
5
6
10,001-25,000
10,001-25,000
Whole Sale Trade
Retail Trade
Lake Forest IL
Naperville IL
65/35
50/50
7
10,001-25,000
Health Care and Social Assistance
Chicago IL
20/80
8
9
10
11
12
10,001-25,000
5,001-10,000
2,001-5,000
2,001-5,000
2,001-5,000
Manufacturing
Finance and Insurance
Manufacturing
Other Services
Whole Sale Trade
Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services
Lisle IL
Chicago IL
Chicago IL
Des Plaines IL
Oak Brook IL
77/23
34/66
83/17
51/49
51/49
Lemont IL
70/30
13
2,001-5,000
14
2,001-5,000
Health Care and Social Services
Naperville IL
83/17
15
16
17
18
501-2,000
251-500
251-500
101-250
Finance and Insurance
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Chicago IL
Rosemont IL
Plymouth WI
Chicago IL
56/44
68/32
60/40
62/38
Introduction: The Midwest Business Group on Health (MBGH) is a non-profit, Chicago-based 501(c)(3) business coalition.
Its members represent
over 115 large public and private employer organizations and health care stakeholders. MBGH serves as one of the nation’s leading employerfocused coalitions and is a recognized leader in offering education, research and community-based activities that increase the value of health
benefits and health care services.
Representation of Percentage of Employee Participation in Clinical/Biometric
Assessments in the Past 12 Months
6
5
Company Wellness Assessment: In 2013 as part of its ongoing effort to recognize employer best practices in health improvement, 18
companies representing a broad range of industries responded to a 45 item self-assessment survey concerning worksite wellness activities and
health promotion programming, and to gauge their complexity. Employers were asked to respond to questions evaluating leadership support;
wellness initiatives; programmatic variables; availability of programming; participation, resource allocation, and outcomes measurement.
Assessment Results
Member Descriptions: Company size ranging from 2,000-25,000; 7 industries: health care; manufacturing; finance and insurance; retail trade;
whole sale trade; professional; scientific and technical services, and other services. (See Table 1).
health plans and employers. Companies rated leadership support for health program initiatives (x bar 69%) (See Table 2). A somewhat significant
rate of employee engagement and participation was reported (See Figure 1) ; employees participating in health programming ranged over a 24
month period (including health risk assessment (HRA) completion) (See Table 3); biometric screening and feedback was a key feature of most health
programs (See Table 4) reducing weight and lowering the effects of metabolic conditions were important foci combined with stress management for
employees.
Table 2. RATINGS OF LEADERSHIP SUPPORT
100
3
2
1
0
Unknown
Do Not Offer
0-15
16-30
31-50
51-80
81-100
Percentages of Participation
Programming: The most prominent results showed that the duration of programming ranged from 1-9 years and was provided by vendors,
Table 1 describes the companies that completed the self-assessment
4
Number of Companies
Company
Table 4. BIOMETRIC SCREENING PARTICIPATION
Table 4 shows the rate of employee participation in biometric screenings
FIGURE 1. EMPLOYEE AND PARTICIPATION
Yes 5/18
90
Barriers to Employee Engagement:
80
X bar
69%
70
60
Time to participate; privacy concerns; availability of programming, internal communication
effectiveness; perceived low levels of leadership engagement and employee behavioral reinforcement.
Conclusion: Table 2 demonstrates leadership support is positive and is consistent with evidence showing a climate of implementation enables
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Table 2 shows the self-assessed rate of leadership support for worksite health programming
worksite wellness programming (Pronk & Kottke, 2009). The promising rate (See table 3 & 4) of employee completion of biometric screening with
feedback is consistent with the AHRF Plus gateway to improved employee participation, engagement and health outcomes (Soler et al. 2010).
Companies measuring and providing feedback to employees is akin to the “Know your numbers” concept Edington (2013). Table 5 states reported
barriers to employee participation and suggests solutions companies could make to increase employee participation and engagement. A study
conducted by Selby et al (2010) evaluated participation in an employee wellness program (N=441 eligible participants) and found similar barriers to
participation in health programming and supported the solutions suggested. Companies have scope for growth in health culture development,
employee engagement and program integration. Figure 2 shows the complexity of stakeholder relationships engaged with program visioning,
planning, implementation and evaluation, however, complexity of support , delivery and evaluation should be considered as a regular occurrence
given the nature of the health and business outcomes targeted for improvement (Reavley et al. (2010). This sample of companies are using best
practices outlined by Goetzel and Pronk (2010), these include but are not limited to leadership and management commitment, diverse program
offerings, multi-condition and multi-level approaches.
Wellness Efforts that
achieve significant
rates of engagement
and participation
Somewhat 11/18
No 1/18
Figure 1 shows the self-reported rates of participation and engagement in companies
TABLE 5. BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS
Table 3. EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
Future Directions: We recommend 1) companies should conduct an annual organizational self-assessment and benchmarking process against
the National Worksite Health Promotion Survey (Linan et al., 2008) and other members of the MBGH, 2) directly link strategic business initiatives
with employee health needs and 3) concentrate their efforts on increasing employee participation and engagement.
Representation of Percentage of Employee Participation in
HRA programming during Last 24 Months
7
BARRIER
Lack of Time is the #1 barrier to employee
participation.
Develop and deploy policies enabling employees
to participate.
Develop operational management buy-in
supporting employee participation
Access to programming reported by most
companies as an employee barrier
Adopt web based options for delivery like most
companies opting for wellness program sourced
this way.
More than 15 companies depended on
vendors to provide health education and
assessments increasing operational
complexity
Integrate and simplify implementation wherever
possible to ease administrative, operational
burden and lower costs.
Non-health supportive company policies. 3
companies offer comprehensive and
integrated policies, programming and
benefits
Adopt policies and procedures that affect
population health change at the worksite.
Program inconvenience deters employee
participation and engagement
Identify ways to create access and convenient
participation solutions as 3 companies in this
survey reported doing.
6
Number of Companies
5
FIGURE 2. STAKEHOLDERS CONCERNED WITH WORKSITE HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMMING
4
3
2
SOLUTIONS
1
0
Unknown
Do Not Offer
0-15
16-30
31-50
51-80
81-100
Percentages of Participation
Table 3 shows the rate of employee completion of an HRA and participation in programming n the
24 months prior to the self-assessment.
References
Edington, D. (2013). Zero Trends. Ann Arbor: MI. Health Management Research Center.
Goetzel, R., & Pronk, N. (2010). Worksite Health Promotion. How much do we really know about what works? American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 38, S223-225.
Linan et al. (2008). Results of the National Worksite Health Promotion Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1503-1509.
Pronk, N., & Kottke (2009). Physical activity promotion as a strategic corporate priority to improve worker health and business performance .
Preventive Medicine, 49, 316-321.
Pronk, N. (2009). ACSM’s Worksite Health Handbook, 2nd . Champaign: IL. Human Kinetics.
Reavely et al. (2010). A systematic grounded approach to the development of complex interventions: The Australian WorkHealth ProgramArthritis case study. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 342-350.
Selby et al. (2010). Barriers to participation in a worksite wellness program. Nutrition Research and Practice, 4, 149-154.
Soler et al. (2010). A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion. American Journal Preventive Medicine, 38,
S237-S262.
Senior Leadership
Data Management
14/18
Benefits Admin.
Marketing
9/18
Management/ Supervisor
18/18
7/18
Health Care Provider
12/18
Occupational Health
Communications
13/18
Human Resources
11/18
14/18
Insurance Provider
17/18
Finance
Safety
12/18
7/18
8/18
Employee Assistant Program
11/18
Wellness Vendor
Risk Management
Fitness Center
5/18
11/18
Wellness Consultant
Other: Cafeteria Vendor
7/18
1/18
13/18
Table 5 shows the prominent barriers to employee participation and solutions recommended
in Edington (2013) and Pronk (2009).
This figure shows the different internal and external stakeholders involved with program development, delivery and evaluation. Positive numbers are on the left e.g. 14 out of
18 companies reported positive leadership engagement.