Behavioral Risk Factor and Illness Day Changes with Workplace Health Promotion: Two-Year Results

Abstract

Purpose. The impact of a workplace health promotion program was evaluated to determine changes in the number and level of seven behavioral risks and self-reported illness days. Design. The study employed a pretest/posttest intervention group (N=7,178) with a two-year follow-up and a time-lagged, nonequivalent comparison group (N=7,101). Setting. The study population was drawn from a large manufacturing company with more than 100 United States locations. Subjects. Approximately one half of the study population was 40 years of age or older, 75 % were males, 90 % were white, and about 40 % were hourly manufacturing employees. Intervention. The program consisted of 1) training and support of coordinators; 2) health risk appraisals; 3) on-site classes, safety meetings, and self-help options; 4) environmental changes, e.g., smoking policy, cafeteria offerings, and blood pressure machines; and 5) recognition. Measures. A 38-item health appraisal included self-report of illness days and behavioral risks, as well as information from company physical examinations. Results. Both the number and the level of behavioral risk factors improved over two years. The proportion of employees with three or more risk factors decreased by 14% (p<.001). The number of self-reported illness days in this group decreased by 12% during the same period (p<.001). No change in illness days was observed in the group with fewer than three risk factors. Risk levels improved (range = 4.5% to 79%) for six of seven factors among high-risk individuals. Conclusions. This intervention appears to have had a positive impact on the number and level of behavioral risk factors; most of the improvement occurred among high-risk participants. The extent to which this study's results can be generalized to other populations is limited by several methodological limitations including several key variables are self-reported, a time-lagged rather than concurrent comparison group was used, the intervention group response rate was low, and the intervention group differed from the comparison group on four of five demographic variables.