The impact of two workplace-based health risk appraisal interventions on employee lifestyle parameters, mental health and work ability: results of a randomized controlled trial

K. Addley, S. Boyd, Robert Kerr, P. McQuillan, J. Houdmont, M. McCrory

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Health risk appraisals (HRA) are a common typeof workplace health promotion programmeoffered by American employers. In the UnitedKingdom, evidence of their effectiveness for promotinghealth behaviour change remains inconclusive.This randomized controlled trialexamined the effects of two HRA interventionson lifestyle parameters, mental health and workability in a UK context. A total of 180 employeeswere randomized into one of three groups:Group A (HRA augmented with health promotionand education activities), Group B (HRAonly) and Group C (control, no intervention).After 12months, changes in mean scoring in 10lifestyle, mental health and work ability indiceswere compared, Groups A and B demonstratednon-significant improvements in 70% and 80%,respectively, compared with controls (40%).Odds ratios revealed that, compared with thecontrol group, Group A was 29.2 (95% CI:9.22–92.27) times more likely to report a perceivedchange in lifestyle behaviour; Group B4.4 times (95% CI: 1.65–11.44). In conclusion,participation in the HRA was associated with ahigher likelihood of perceived lifestyle behaviourchange which was further increased in the augmentedHRA group, thereby providingpreliminary evidence that HRA and augmentedHRA in particular may helpUKemployeesmakepositive healthy lifestyle changes.
LanguageEnglish
Pages247-258
JournalHealth Education Research
Volume29
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Health Status Indicators
Aptitude
health risk
Workplace
Life Style
Mental Health
Randomized Controlled Trials
workplace
mental health
employee
ability
Group
Health Promotion
Health Education
Odds Ratio
Control Groups
health promotion
evidence
employer

Cite this

@article{189cbc4308634087b0012f7c07555b63,
title = "The impact of two workplace-based health risk appraisal interventions on employee lifestyle parameters, mental health and work ability: results of a randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Health risk appraisals (HRA) are a common typeof workplace health promotion programmeoffered by American employers. In the UnitedKingdom, evidence of their effectiveness for promotinghealth behaviour change remains inconclusive.This randomized controlled trialexamined the effects of two HRA interventionson lifestyle parameters, mental health and workability in a UK context. A total of 180 employeeswere randomized into one of three groups:Group A (HRA augmented with health promotionand education activities), Group B (HRAonly) and Group C (control, no intervention).After 12months, changes in mean scoring in 10lifestyle, mental health and work ability indiceswere compared, Groups A and B demonstratednon-significant improvements in 70{\%} and 80{\%},respectively, compared with controls (40{\%}).Odds ratios revealed that, compared with thecontrol group, Group A was 29.2 (95{\%} CI:9.22–92.27) times more likely to report a perceivedchange in lifestyle behaviour; Group B4.4 times (95{\%} CI: 1.65–11.44). In conclusion,participation in the HRA was associated with ahigher likelihood of perceived lifestyle behaviourchange which was further increased in the augmentedHRA group, thereby providingpreliminary evidence that HRA and augmentedHRA in particular may helpUKemployeesmakepositive healthy lifestyle changes.",
author = "K. Addley and S. Boyd and Robert Kerr and P. McQuillan and J. Houdmont and M. McCrory",
note = "Reference text: 1. Lewis R, Dixon J. Rethinking management of chronic diseases. Br Med J 2004; 328: 220–2. 2. Yach D, Hawkes C, Gould CL et al. The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 291: 2616–22. 3. Spring B, Moller AC, Coons MJ. Multiple health behaviours: overview and implications. J Public Health 2012; 34(Suppl. 1): i3–10. 4. Robroek SJW, van de Vathorst S, Hilhorst MT et al. Moral issues in workplace health promotion. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012; 85: 327–31. 5. Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ. The health and cost benefits of work site health-promotion programs. Annu Rev Public Health 2008; 29: 303–23. 6. Proper KI, Van Mechelen W. Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Worksite Interventions to Promote Physical Activity and Healthy Diet. Geneva: WHO Press, 2008. 7. Sorensen G, Barbeau E, Hunt MK et al. Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 230–9. Impact of HRA interventions 257 Downloaded from http://her.oxfordjournals.org/ at university of ulster on April 11, 2014 8. Goetzel RZ, Pronk NP. Worksite health promotion How much do we really know about what works? Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 223–5. 9. Robroek SJ, van den Berg TI, Plat JF et al. The role of obesity and lifestyle behaviours in a productive workforce. Occup Environ Med 2011; 68: 134–9. 10. Schmier JK, Jones ML, Halpern MT. Cost of obesity in the workplace. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006; 32: 5–11. 11. Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 2007; 17: 547–79. 12. Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ. Health and productivity management: emerging opportunities for health promotion professionals for the 21st century. Am J Health Promot 2000; 14: 211–4. 13. Goetzel RZ, Carls GS, Wang S et al. The relationship between modifiable health risk factors and medical expenditures, absenteeism, short-term disability, and presenteeism among employees at Novartis. J Occup EnvironMed 2009; 51: 487–99. 14. Aldana SG. Financial impact of health promotion programs: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Health Promot 2001; 15: 296–320. 15. Chapman LS.Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies: 2005 update. Am J Health Promot 2005; 19: 1–11. 16. Chapman LS.Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies: 2012 update. Am J Health Promot 2012; 26: TAHP–1–12. 17. Riedel JE, Lynch W, Baase C et al. The effect of disease prevention and health promotion on workplace productivity: a literature review. Am J Health Promot 2001; 15: 167–91. 18. DaleyAJ, Parfitt G.Good health—is itworth it?Mood states, physical well-being, job satisfaction and absenteeism in members and non-members of British corporate health and fitness clubs. J Occup Organ Psychol 1996; 69: 121–34. 19. Harden A, Peersman G, Oliver S et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in the workplace. Occup Med (Lond) 1999; 49: 540–8. 20. Hillier D, Fewell F, CannWet al. Wellness at work: enhancing the quality of our working lives. Int Rev Psychiatry 2005; 17: 419–31. 21. Mills PR. The development of a new corporate specific health risk measurement instrument, and its use in investigating the relationship between health and well-being and employee productivity. Environ Health 2005; 4: 1. 22. McGillivray D. Health promotion in workplace: a missed opportunity. Health Educ 2002; 120: 60–7. 23. Black C. Working for a Healthier Tomorrow. London: The Stationery Office, 2007. 24. Cartwright S. Taking the pulse of executive health in the UK. Acad Manag Exec 2000; 14: 16–24. 25. Department of Health. Public Health Responsibility Deal: Health at Work, 2013. Available at: https://responsibility deal.dh.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HatW-Flyer- Final.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 26. Health Promotion Agency. Work Well: Healthy Workplace Guide, 2008. Available at: http://www.healthpromotiona gency.org.uk/Resources/workwell/pdfs/WorkWell_Guide_ Assesment_08.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 27. Cowdery JE, Suggs LS, Parker S.Application of aweb-based tailored health risk assessment in a work-site population. Health Promot Pract 2007; 8: 88–95. 28. Soler RE, Leeks KD, Razi S et al. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: S237–62. 29. Department for Work and Pensions. Dame Carol Black’s Review of the Health of Britain’s Working Age Population: Summary of Evidence Submitted, 2008. Available at: http:// www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hwwb-healthier-tomorrowevidence- summary.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 30. Wolf K. Health and productivity management in Europe. Int J Workplace Health Manag 2008; 1: 136–44. 31. Reiso H, Nygard JF, Brage S et al.Work ability assessed by patients and their GPs in new episodes of sickness certification. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 139–44. 32. van den Berg TIJ, Elders LAM, de Zwart BCH et al. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2009; 66: 211–20. 33. Ilmarinen JE. Aging workers. Occup Environ Med 2001; 58: 546–52. 34. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A et al. Work Ability Index. 2nd revised edition. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 1998. 35. World Health Organization. WHO (Five) Well Being Index. Denmark: Psychiatric Research Unit, WHO Collaborating Center for Mental Health, 1998. 36. Goldberg DP, Williams P. A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor UK: NFER-Nelson Publishing Company Ltd, 1991. 37. Keyes CLM. The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life. J Health Social Behav 2002; 43: 207–22. 38. Fitech Limited. Fitech Counsellor Series. London: Fitech Ltd, 1998. 39. Addley K, McQuillan P, Ruddle M. Creating healthy workplaces in Northern Ireland: evaluation of a lifestyle and physical activity assessment programme. Occup Med 2001; 51: 439–49. 40. Bevan S. The Business Case for Employees’ Health and Wellbeing. London: The Work Foundation, 2010. 41. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of selfchange of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983; 51: 390–5. 42. Prochaska JJ, Spring B, Nigg CR. Multiple health behaviour change research: an introduction and overview. Prev Med 2008; 46: 181–8. K. Addley et al. 258",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1093/her/cyt113",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "247--258",
journal = "Health Education Research",
issn = "0268-1153",
number = "2",

}

The impact of two workplace-based health risk appraisal interventions on employee lifestyle parameters, mental health and work ability: results of a randomized controlled trial. / Addley, K.; Boyd, S.; Kerr, Robert; McQuillan, P.; Houdmont, J.; McCrory, M.

In: Health Education Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2014, p. 247-258.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of two workplace-based health risk appraisal interventions on employee lifestyle parameters, mental health and work ability: results of a randomized controlled trial

AU - Addley, K.

AU - Boyd, S.

AU - Kerr, Robert

AU - McQuillan, P.

AU - Houdmont, J.

AU - McCrory, M.

N1 - Reference text: 1. Lewis R, Dixon J. Rethinking management of chronic diseases. Br Med J 2004; 328: 220–2. 2. Yach D, Hawkes C, Gould CL et al. The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 291: 2616–22. 3. Spring B, Moller AC, Coons MJ. Multiple health behaviours: overview and implications. J Public Health 2012; 34(Suppl. 1): i3–10. 4. Robroek SJW, van de Vathorst S, Hilhorst MT et al. Moral issues in workplace health promotion. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2012; 85: 327–31. 5. Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ. The health and cost benefits of work site health-promotion programs. Annu Rev Public Health 2008; 29: 303–23. 6. Proper KI, Van Mechelen W. Effectiveness and Economic Impact of Worksite Interventions to Promote Physical Activity and Healthy Diet. Geneva: WHO Press, 2008. 7. Sorensen G, Barbeau E, Hunt MK et al. Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 230–9. Impact of HRA interventions 257 Downloaded from http://her.oxfordjournals.org/ at university of ulster on April 11, 2014 8. Goetzel RZ, Pronk NP. Worksite health promotion How much do we really know about what works? Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 223–5. 9. Robroek SJ, van den Berg TI, Plat JF et al. The role of obesity and lifestyle behaviours in a productive workforce. Occup Environ Med 2011; 68: 134–9. 10. Schmier JK, Jones ML, Halpern MT. Cost of obesity in the workplace. Scand J Work Environ Health 2006; 32: 5–11. 11. Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee health and presenteeism: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil 2007; 17: 547–79. 12. Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ. Health and productivity management: emerging opportunities for health promotion professionals for the 21st century. Am J Health Promot 2000; 14: 211–4. 13. Goetzel RZ, Carls GS, Wang S et al. The relationship between modifiable health risk factors and medical expenditures, absenteeism, short-term disability, and presenteeism among employees at Novartis. J Occup EnvironMed 2009; 51: 487–99. 14. Aldana SG. Financial impact of health promotion programs: a comprehensive review of the literature. Am J Health Promot 2001; 15: 296–320. 15. Chapman LS.Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies: 2005 update. Am J Health Promot 2005; 19: 1–11. 16. Chapman LS.Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies: 2012 update. Am J Health Promot 2012; 26: TAHP–1–12. 17. Riedel JE, Lynch W, Baase C et al. The effect of disease prevention and health promotion on workplace productivity: a literature review. Am J Health Promot 2001; 15: 167–91. 18. DaleyAJ, Parfitt G.Good health—is itworth it?Mood states, physical well-being, job satisfaction and absenteeism in members and non-members of British corporate health and fitness clubs. J Occup Organ Psychol 1996; 69: 121–34. 19. Harden A, Peersman G, Oliver S et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions in the workplace. Occup Med (Lond) 1999; 49: 540–8. 20. Hillier D, Fewell F, CannWet al. Wellness at work: enhancing the quality of our working lives. Int Rev Psychiatry 2005; 17: 419–31. 21. Mills PR. The development of a new corporate specific health risk measurement instrument, and its use in investigating the relationship between health and well-being and employee productivity. Environ Health 2005; 4: 1. 22. McGillivray D. Health promotion in workplace: a missed opportunity. Health Educ 2002; 120: 60–7. 23. Black C. Working for a Healthier Tomorrow. London: The Stationery Office, 2007. 24. Cartwright S. Taking the pulse of executive health in the UK. Acad Manag Exec 2000; 14: 16–24. 25. Department of Health. Public Health Responsibility Deal: Health at Work, 2013. Available at: https://responsibility deal.dh.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HatW-Flyer- Final.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 26. Health Promotion Agency. Work Well: Healthy Workplace Guide, 2008. Available at: http://www.healthpromotiona gency.org.uk/Resources/workwell/pdfs/WorkWell_Guide_ Assesment_08.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 27. Cowdery JE, Suggs LS, Parker S.Application of aweb-based tailored health risk assessment in a work-site population. Health Promot Pract 2007; 8: 88–95. 28. Soler RE, Leeks KD, Razi S et al. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: S237–62. 29. Department for Work and Pensions. Dame Carol Black’s Review of the Health of Britain’s Working Age Population: Summary of Evidence Submitted, 2008. Available at: http:// www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hwwb-healthier-tomorrowevidence- summary.pdf. Accessed: 12 December 2013. 30. Wolf K. Health and productivity management in Europe. Int J Workplace Health Manag 2008; 1: 136–44. 31. Reiso H, Nygard JF, Brage S et al.Work ability assessed by patients and their GPs in new episodes of sickness certification. Fam Pract 2000; 17: 139–44. 32. van den Berg TIJ, Elders LAM, de Zwart BCH et al. The effects of work-related and individual factors on the Work Ability Index: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med 2009; 66: 211–20. 33. Ilmarinen JE. Aging workers. Occup Environ Med 2001; 58: 546–52. 34. Tuomi K, Ilmarinen J, Jahkola A et al. Work Ability Index. 2nd revised edition. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 1998. 35. World Health Organization. WHO (Five) Well Being Index. Denmark: Psychiatric Research Unit, WHO Collaborating Center for Mental Health, 1998. 36. Goldberg DP, Williams P. A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor UK: NFER-Nelson Publishing Company Ltd, 1991. 37. Keyes CLM. The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life. J Health Social Behav 2002; 43: 207–22. 38. Fitech Limited. Fitech Counsellor Series. London: Fitech Ltd, 1998. 39. Addley K, McQuillan P, Ruddle M. Creating healthy workplaces in Northern Ireland: evaluation of a lifestyle and physical activity assessment programme. Occup Med 2001; 51: 439–49. 40. Bevan S. The Business Case for Employees’ Health and Wellbeing. London: The Work Foundation, 2010. 41. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of selfchange of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983; 51: 390–5. 42. Prochaska JJ, Spring B, Nigg CR. Multiple health behaviour change research: an introduction and overview. Prev Med 2008; 46: 181–8. K. Addley et al. 258

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Health risk appraisals (HRA) are a common typeof workplace health promotion programmeoffered by American employers. In the UnitedKingdom, evidence of their effectiveness for promotinghealth behaviour change remains inconclusive.This randomized controlled trialexamined the effects of two HRA interventionson lifestyle parameters, mental health and workability in a UK context. A total of 180 employeeswere randomized into one of three groups:Group A (HRA augmented with health promotionand education activities), Group B (HRAonly) and Group C (control, no intervention).After 12months, changes in mean scoring in 10lifestyle, mental health and work ability indiceswere compared, Groups A and B demonstratednon-significant improvements in 70% and 80%,respectively, compared with controls (40%).Odds ratios revealed that, compared with thecontrol group, Group A was 29.2 (95% CI:9.22–92.27) times more likely to report a perceivedchange in lifestyle behaviour; Group B4.4 times (95% CI: 1.65–11.44). In conclusion,participation in the HRA was associated with ahigher likelihood of perceived lifestyle behaviourchange which was further increased in the augmentedHRA group, thereby providingpreliminary evidence that HRA and augmentedHRA in particular may helpUKemployeesmakepositive healthy lifestyle changes.

AB - Health risk appraisals (HRA) are a common typeof workplace health promotion programmeoffered by American employers. In the UnitedKingdom, evidence of their effectiveness for promotinghealth behaviour change remains inconclusive.This randomized controlled trialexamined the effects of two HRA interventionson lifestyle parameters, mental health and workability in a UK context. A total of 180 employeeswere randomized into one of three groups:Group A (HRA augmented with health promotionand education activities), Group B (HRAonly) and Group C (control, no intervention).After 12months, changes in mean scoring in 10lifestyle, mental health and work ability indiceswere compared, Groups A and B demonstratednon-significant improvements in 70% and 80%,respectively, compared with controls (40%).Odds ratios revealed that, compared with thecontrol group, Group A was 29.2 (95% CI:9.22–92.27) times more likely to report a perceivedchange in lifestyle behaviour; Group B4.4 times (95% CI: 1.65–11.44). In conclusion,participation in the HRA was associated with ahigher likelihood of perceived lifestyle behaviourchange which was further increased in the augmentedHRA group, thereby providingpreliminary evidence that HRA and augmentedHRA in particular may helpUKemployeesmakepositive healthy lifestyle changes.

U2 - 10.1093/her/cyt113

DO - 10.1093/her/cyt113

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 247

EP - 258

JO - Health Education Research

T2 - Health Education Research

JF - Health Education Research

SN - 0268-1153

IS - 2

ER -