Health ambassadors in the workplace: a health promotion intervention mobilizing middle managers and RE-AIM evaluation of outcomes

Background The workplace provides an ideal setting for health promotion, as adults spend most of their day at work. Middle managers hold a strategic position to lead workplace health promotion. This study evaluates the outcomes of an intensive intervention training middle managers to promote health in the workplace. Methods A workshop was designed and conducted to train female middle management employees to construct, implement, and evaluate a health promotion program in their workplace. Semi-structured interviews were carried out post-intervention to assess workplace health promotion outcomes according to the RE-AIM framework, and identify variables contributing to success. Additionally, questionnaires were distributed pre and post-program assessing personal health and self-efficacy changes. Results Eighteen participants from 13 government offices, who serve 19,560 employees, completed the training course. Nine workplaces had workplace health promotion programs in progress 12 months after the course had ended, of which 8 made health promotion changes in organizational policy. Workplace RE-AIM scores showed that 8 workplaces were high or partial performers, and 5 were low or non-performers. Factors that increased the likelihood of successful interventions included management support, steering committee, comprehensive programming, conducting a needs assessment and flexibility in program implementation in the presence of challenges. Post course, participants reported increased health knowledge related to workplace health promotion (p < 0.001), and increased health promotion self-efficacy (p < 0.05). Conclusions Training and continued guidance of middle managers resulted in the design and successful implementation of workplace health promotion interventions. A RE-AIM based assessment was found to be an effective method for evaluating multi-content workplace health promotion programs. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: NCT03295136, registration date: 24/09/2017.

Implementation of workplace well-being programs in the Russian Federation: development of the on-line tools package and results of its piloting

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction. Most of the working-age population spends a significant part of their life at workplace. On the one hand, working conditions can cause stress, and therefore an increase unhealthy lifestyle, on the other hand, the workplace is a convenient organizational model for health promotion. In 2019 a big federal project "Public health" started aimed to improve population health and one of its important components is increasing implementation of effective workplace health promotion programs. Model workplace well-being programs have been developed within the framework of the Federal Project «Public Health». Purpose is to develop and pilot a package of tools for planning and implementing workplace well-being programs. Methods. Planning stage of the program has to include situation analysis with three components: available infrastructure analysis, employee interviews and comprehensive program development. We developed two types of questionnaires: for employers and for employees. After testing it in paper on limited N of participants it was corrected and electronic version was developed. The link to the instrument was distributed through the regional centers for public health who are responsible for implementation workplace health promotion programs in the regions. Results. In spring 2020, 558 completed questionnaires were received (among them 35 from employers, and 553 from employees). Among employers, 53.1% were familiar with workplace well-being programs, such programs were approved at 43.8% of enterprises. Employers believe that the most appropriate implementation of the following components are measures to increase the level of physical activity (22.9%), measures to prevent smoking (18.1%) and psychological relief (18.1%). There was a predominance of female among surveyed employees (66,5%), the average age was 39.8 ± 10.7 years and 42.6 ± 11.1 years for men and women, respectively. The following factors worried the employees on the workplace: distance from their place of residence (12.1%), continuous tension and stress (11.3%), noise (7.8%) and other factors. The level of presenteeism (measured by Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire) was also analyzed, the low level of presenteeism was 38.9% and 42.4%, and the average level was 59.9% and 55.9% for men and women, respectively. Conclusion. We developed the set of instruments which must be useful for implementation of the workplace well-being programs. Surveys of employers contribute to obtaining a snapshot of the attitudes and priorities of employers in the region to plan targeted measures to stimulate the implementation of workplace well-being programs at the regional level. Questionnaires for employees can be used for an in-depth assessment of the priorities on the concrete workplace and development of a targeted program to the needs of a particular enterprise.

1187 What Types Of Organizations Provide Sleep-focused Workplace Health Promotion Programs For Their Employees? An Analysis Of The 2017 CDC Workplace Health In America Survey

Introduction There has been a rise in workplace health promotion programs (WHPP)’s in the U.S., designed to improve a variety of employee health behaviors such as exercise and nutrition. Yet, relatively few focus on the third pillar of health: Sleep. Methods The CDC collected data from a nationally-representative cohort of companies in 2017. Participants in this Workplace Health in America study completed online surveys reporting the type of WHPP offerings at their worksite and characteristics of their worksite, including occupational field (e.g., agriculture, management, wholesale/retail), workforce size (i.e., small: &lt;100; moderate: 100-499; and large: 500+) and company type (e.g., non-profit, profit-private, profit-public, government). We identified factors associated with an increased likelihood of sleep-focused WHPP using logistic regression adjusted for company size and type. Analyses were weighted for nationally-representative estimates. Results Of the N=2,843 companies that provided information, N=261 (11.74%) reported having a sleep program. Worksites with large workforces (OR=4.8, p&lt;0.0005), for-profit public companies (OR=9.0, p&lt;0.0005), in wholesale/retail (OR=3.8, p&lt;0.0005), and those with employer-subsidized full health insurance (OR=12.7, p&lt;0.0005) were more likely to have a sleep-focused WHPP. Other predictors included more long-standing WHPP programs (6 years, OR=4.4, p&lt;0.0005), the presence of employee health in the company’s mission (OR=4.5, p&lt;0.0005), leadership buy-in (OR=3.5, p=0.007), and an annual health promotion budget &gt;$50,000 (OR=11.3, p&lt;0.0005). Conclusion In general, workplaces with higher budgets, more well-established health promotion programs, and a mission to promote workplace health are more likely to include a sleep program. Also, publicly-traded companies and government were more likely than private companies to have a sleep program. Future research may consider defining barriers among small business and non-profit organizations for implementing sleep-focused workplace health programs. Support T32HL007901

Availability of and Participation in Workplace Health Promotion Programs by Sociodemographic, Occupation, and Work Organization Characteristics in US Workers

Purpose: To examine how the availability of and participation in workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) vary as a function of sociodemographic, occupation, and work organization characteristics. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: 2015 National Health Interview Survey and Occupational Health Supplement. Participants: The study sample included 17 469 employed adults who completed the WHPP questions. Measures: The 2 dependent outcome measures were availability of WHPPs and participation in these programs when available. Independent variables included occupation and 8 work organization and employment characteristics: company size, hours worked, supervisory responsibility, hourly pay, paid sick leave, health insurance offered by employer, work schedule, and work arrangement. Analysis: Poisson regression analyses were conducted with SUDAAN 11.0.1. Results: Overall, 57.8% of 46.6% employees who have WHPPs available reported participating in these programs. This study found that adults who worked ≤20 h/wk, worked regular night shifts, were paid by the hour, or worked for temporary agencies were less likely to participate in WHPPs. Workers who supervised others were 13% more likely to participate than nonsupervisors. Borderline associations were seen for having access to employer-sponsored health insurance and working at a site with <10 employees. Conclusion: Despite the potential for improving physical and mental health, only 58% of US workers participated in WHPPs. Since barriers to WHPP participation (eg, time constraints, lack of awareness, and no perceived need) may vary across occupations and work organization characteristics, employers should tailor WHPPs based on their specific work organization characteristics to maximize participation.