How needs and preferences of employees influence participation in health promotion programs: a six-month follow-up study

BMC Public Health

Alex Burdorf¹  Martin Pet²  Dennis Lindeboom³  Wouter van Ginkel⁴  Suzan J W Robroek¹  Anne Rongen¹ 

[1] Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands;Lifeguard B.V., 3508 AE Utrecht, the Netherlands;WerkVanNu, 2726 VA Zoetermeer, the Netherlands;Werkgeversforum Kroon op het Werk, 2132 JJ Hoofddorp, the Netherlands

关键词: Participation;    Health behavior;    Preferences;    Health promotion;    Workplace;   

Others  :  1092281
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1277

 received in 2014-08-21, accepted in 2014-12-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Low participation in health promotion programs (HPPs) might hamper their effectiveness. A potential reason for low participation is disagreement between needs and preferences of potential participants and the actual HPPs offered. This study aimed to investigate employees’ need and preferences for HPPs, whether these are matched by what their employers provide, and whether a higher agreement enhanced participation.

Methods

Employees of two organizations participated in a six-month follow-up study (n = 738). At baseline, information was collected on employees’ needs and preferences for the topic of the HPP (i.e. physical activity, healthy nutrition, smoking cessation, stress management, general health), whether they favored a HPP via their employer or at their own discretion, and their preferred HPP regarding three components with each two alternatives: mode of delivery (individual vs. group), intensity (single vs. multiple meetings), and content (assignments vs. information). Participation in HPPs was assessed at six-month follow-up. In consultation with occupational health managers (n = 2), information was gathered on the HPPs the employers provided. The level of agreement between preferred and provided HPPs was calculated (range: 0–1) and its influence on participation was studied using logistic regression analyses.

Results

Most employees reported needing a HPP addressing physical activity (55%) and most employees preferred HPPs organized via their employer. The mean level of agreement between the preferred and offered HPPs ranged from 0.71 for mode of delivery to 0.84 for intensity, and was 0.47 for all three HPP components within a topic combined. Employees with a higher agreement on mode of delivery (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 0.87-3.39) and all HPP components combined (OR: 2.36, 95% CI: 0.68-8.17) seemed to be more likely to participate in HPPs, but due to low participation these associations were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

HPPs aimed at physical activity were most needed by employees. The majority of employees favor HPPs organized via the employer above those at their own discretion, supporting the provision of HPPs at the workplace. This study provides some indications that a higher agreement between employees’ needs and preferences and HPPs made available by their employers will enhance participation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Rongen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Linnan L, Bowling M, Childress J, Lindsay G, Blakey C, Pronk S, Wieker S, Royall P: Results of the 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey. Am J Public Health 2008, 98(8):1503-1509.
• [2]Conn VS, Hafdahl AR, Cooper PS, Brown LM, Lusk SL: Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med 2009, 37(4):330-339.
• [3]Anderson LM, Quinn TA, Glanz K, Ramirez G, Kahwati LC, Johnson DB, Buchanan LR, Archer WR, Chattopadhyay S, Kalra GP, Katz DL, Task force on Community Preventive Services: The effectiveness of worksite nutrition and physical activity interventions for controlling employee overweight and obesity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2009, 37(4):340-357.
• [4]Maes L, Van Cauwenberghe E, Van Lippevelde W, Spittaels H, De Pauw E, Oppert JM, Van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, De Bourdeaudhuij I: Effectiveness of workplace interventions in Europe promoting healthy eating: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 2012, 22(5):677-83.
• [5]Proper KI, Staal BJ, Hildebrandt VH, van der Beek AJ, van Mechelen W: Effectiveness of physical activity programs at worksites with respect to work-related outcomes. Scand J Work Environ Health 2002, 28(2):75-84.
• [6]Kuoppala J, Lamminpaa A, Husman P: Work health promotion, job well-being, and sickness absences–a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med 2008, 50(11):1216-1227.
• [7]Brown HE, Gilson ND, Burton NW, Brown WJ: Does physical activity impact on presenteeism and other indicators of workplace well-being? Sports Med 2011, 41(3):249-262.
• [8]Cancelliere C, Cassidy JD, Ammendolia C, Cote P: Are workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism in workers? A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:395. BioMed Central Full Text
• [9]Rongen A, Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, Burdorf A: Workplace health promotion: a meta-analysis of effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 2013, 44(4):406-415.
• [10]Robroek SJ, van de Vathorst S, Hilhorst MT, Burdorf A: Moral issues in workplace health promotion. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012, 85(3):327-331.
• [11]Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, van Empelen P, Burdorf A: Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 6:26. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Linnan LA, Sorensen G, Colditz G, Klar DN, Emmons KM: Using theory to understand the multiple determinants of low participation in worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav 2001, 28(5):591-607.
• [13]Blackford K, Jancey J, Howat P, Ledger M, Lee AH: Office-based physical activity and nutrition intervention: barriers, enablers, and preferred strategies for workplace obesity prevention, Perth, Western Australia, 2012. Prev Chronic Dis 2013, 10:E154. doi:10.5888/pcd10.130029
• [14]Groeneveld IF, Proper KI, van der Beek AJ, Hildebrandt VH, van Mechelen W: Factors associated with non-participation and drop-out in a lifestyle intervention for workers with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 6:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Lakerveld J, Ijzelenberg W, van Tulder MW, Hellemans IM, Rauwerda JA, van Rossum AC, Seidell JC: Motives for (not) participating in a lifestyle intervention trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Person AL, Colby SE, Bulova JA, Eubanks JW: Barriers to participation in a worksite wellness program. Nutr Res Pract 2010, 4(2):149-154.
• [17]Bright DR, Terrell SL, Rush MJ, Kroustos KR, Stockert AL, Swanson SC, DiPietro NA: Employee attitudes toward participation in a work site-based health and wellness clinic. J Pharm Pract 2012, 25(5):530-536.
• [18]Rongen A, Robroek SJ, van Ginkel W, Lindeboom D, Altink B, Burdorf A: Barriers and facilitators for participation in health promotion programs among employees: a six-month follow-up study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14(1):573. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G: Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav 1998, 25(5):545-563.
• [20]Green LW, Kreuter MW, Deeds SG, Partrige KB: Health Education Planning: A Diagnostic Approach. California, USA: Mayfield Publishing; 1980.
• [21]Ferney SL, Marshall AL: Website physical activity interventions: preferences of potential users. Health Educ Res 2006, 21(4):560-566.
• [22]Wilson MG, Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, DeJoy DM, Della L, Roemer EC, Schneider J, Tully KJ, White JM, Baase CM: Using formative research to develop environmental and ecological interventions to address overweight and obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007, 15(Suppl 1):37S-47S.
• [23]Kolbe-Alexander TL, Proper KI, Lambert EV, van Wier MF, Pillay JD, Nossel C, Adonis L, Van Mechelen W: Working on wellness (WOW): a worksite health promotion intervention programme. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:372. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]McEachan RR, Lawton RJ, Jackson C, Conner M, Lunt J: Evidence, theory and context: using intervention mapping to develop a worksite physical activity intervention. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:326. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD: A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996, 34(3):220-233.
• [26]Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis JF, Oja P: International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35(8):1381-1395.
• [27]Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A: Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007, 39(8):1423-1434.
• [28]Bogers RP, Van Assema P, Kester AD, Westerterp KR, Dagnelie PC: Reproducibility, validity, and responsiveness to change of a short questionnaire for measuring fruit and vegetable intake. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 159(9):900-909.
• [29]Persson R, Cleal B, Jakobsen MO, Villadsen E, Andersen LL: Help preferences among employees who wish to change health behaviors. Health Educ Behav 2014, 41(4):376-386.
• [30]Lassen A, Bruselius-Jensen M, Sommer HM, Thorsen AV, Trolle E: Factors influencing participation rates and employees’ attitudes toward promoting healthy eating at blue-collar worksites. Health Educ Res 2007, 22(5):727-736.
• [31]Jorgensen MB, Villadsen E, Burr H, Mortensen OS, Holtermann A: Does workplace health promotion in Denmark reach relevant target groups? Health Promot Int 2013. Jun 15. [Epub ahead of print]
• [32]Aittasalo M, Miilunpalo S: Offering physical activity counselling in occupational health care – does it reach the target group? Occup Med (Lond) 2006, 56(1):55-58.
• [33]Niessen MA, Laan EL, Robroek SJ, Essink-Bot ML, Peek N, Kraaijenhagen RA, Van Kalken CK, Burdorf A: Determinants of participation in a web-based health risk assessment and consequences for health promotion programs. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15(8):e151.
• [34]VanWormer JJ, Linde JA, Harnack LJ, Stovitz SD, Jeffery RW: Is baseline physical activity a determinant of participation in worksite walking clubs? Data from the HealthWorks Trial. J Phys Act Health 2012, 9(6):849-856.
• [35]Broekhuizen K, Kroeze W, van Poppel MN, Oenema A, Brug J: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored physical activity and dietary behavior promotion programs: an update. Ann Behav Med 2012, 44(2):259-286.
• [36]Terry PE, Seaverson EL, Grossmeier J, Anderson DR: Effectiveness of a worksite telephone-based weight management program. Am J Health Promot 2011, 25(3):186-189.
• [37]Strijk JE, Proper KI, van der Beek AJ, van Mechelen W: A process evaluation of a worksite vitality intervention among ageing hospital workers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011, 8:58. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Gingerich SB, Anderson DR, Koland H: Impact of financial incentives on behavior change program participation and risk reduction in worksite health promotion. Am J Health Promot 2012, 27(2):119-122.
• [39]Alayli-Goebbels AF, Dellaert BG, Knox SA, Ament AJ, Lakerveld J, Bot SD, Nijpels G, Severens JL: Consumer preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes of health promotion: results from a discrete choice experiment. Value Health 2013, 16(1):114-123.
• [40]Fletcher GM, Behrens TK, Domina L: Barriers and enabling factors for work-site physical activity programs: a qualitative examination. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5(3):418-429.
• [41]Engbers LH, van Poppel MN, Chin APMJ, van Mechelen W: Worksite health promotion programs with environmental changes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005, 29(1):61-70.
• [42]Watts AW, Masse LC: Is access to workplace amenities associated with leisure-time physical activity among Canadian adults? Can J Public Health 2013, 104(1):e87-e91.
• [43]Della LJ, DeJoy DM, Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Wilson MG: Assessing management support for worksite health promotion: psychometric analysis of the leading by example (LBE) instrument. Am J Health Promot 2008, 22(5):359-367.
• [44]Sheeran P: Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 2002, 12(1):1-36.