When work-site health promotion programs incorporate theories of community organization, it is likely that employee ownership and participation are enhanced. This article reports quantitative indicators of involvement of Employee Advisory Board (EAB) members in the Treatwell 5-a-Day work-site study and examines relationships between EAB member time spent on project activities and work-site size, with indicators of the extent of implementation and variables associated with behavior change and work-site support. The results reported here indicate that a greater number of EAB member hours spent on program activities was associated with a greater number of events implemented. Smaller work-site size was associated with greater employee awareness of the program and greater participation in project activities as reported on the employee survey. These results suggest that the number of hours employee representatives devote to project activities might be an important consideration in planning employee involvement in work-site health promotion programming.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Sorensen G, Hsieh J, Hunt MK, Morris DH, Harris DR, Fitzgerald G: Employee advisory boards as a vehicle for organizing worksite health promotion programs. Am J Health Promotion6(6):443-464, 1992.
2.
2. Abrams DB, Emmons KM, Linnan L, Biener L: Smoking cessation at the workplace: Conceptual and practical considerations, in Richmond R (ed.): International Perspective on Smoking. Baltimore, MD, Williams & Williams, 1994, pp. 137-170.
3.
3. Sorensen G, Emmons K, Hunt M, Johnston D: Implications of the results of community intervention trials. Annu Rev Public Health19:379-416, 1998.
4.
4. Sorensen G, Hunt M, Cohen N, Stoddard A, Stein E, Phillips J, Baker F, Combe C, Hebert J, Palombo R: Worksite and family education for dietary change: The Treatwell 5-A-Day Program. Hlth Educ Res13(4):577-591, 1998.
5.
5. Bracht N, Gleason J: Strategies and structures for citizen partnerships, in Bracht N (ed.): Health Promotion at the Community Level. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1990, pp. 109-124.
6.
6. Minkler M, Wallerstein N: Improving health community organization and community building, in Lewis FMGlanz K, Rimer BK (eds.): Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 241-269.
7.
7. Glasgow RE, McCaul KD, Fisher KJ: Participation in worksite health promotion: A critique of the literature and recommendations for future practice. Health Educ Q20:391-408, 1991.
8.
8. Rothman J: Three models of community organization practice, in Erlich JL, Cox F, Rothman J, Tropman JE (eds.): Strategies of Community Organization. Itasca, NJ, F. E. Peacock, 1970, pp. 86-162.
9.
9. Rothman J, Tropman JE: Models of community organization and macro practice, in Erlich JL, Cox F, Rothman J, Tropman JE (eds.): Strategies of Community Organization (4th ed.). Itasca, IL, Peacock, 1987, pp. 3-26.
10.
10. Havas S, Heimendinger J, Reynolds K, Baranowski T, Nicklas T, Bishop D, Buller D, Sorensen G, Beresford S, Cowan A, Damron D: 5-a-Day for Better Health: A new research initiative. Journal of the American Dietetic Assoc94(1):32-36, 1994.
11.
11. Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Macario E: Social support and readiness to make dietary changes. Health Education and Behavior25(5):586-598, 1998.
12.
12. Sorensen G, Stoddard A, Peterson K, Cohen N, Hunt MK, Stein E, Palombo R, Lederman R: Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption through worksites and families in the Treatwell 5-a-Day Study. Am J Public Health89(1):54-60, 1999.
13.
13. Hunt MK, Lederman R, Stoddard A, Potter S, Phillips J, Sorensen G: Findings From the Process Tracking System Used in the Treat Well 5-a-Day Worksite Study, in press.
14.
14. Linnan L, Fava JL, Thompson B, Emmons KM, et al: Measuring participatory strategies: Instrument development for worksite populations. Health Ed Research14:371-386, 1999.
16. Subar AS: Fruit and vegetable intake in the United States: The baseline survey of the Five a Day for Better Health Program. Am J Health Promotion9:352-360, 1995.
17.
17. Serdula MK, Coates RJ, Byers T, Simoes E, Mokdad AH, Subar AF: Fruit and vegetable intake among adults in 16 states: Results of a brief telephone survey. Am J Public Health85(5):236-239, 1995.
18.
18. Israel BA: Review of Community Based Research: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health. Annu Rev Public Health19:173-202, 1998.
19.
19. Koepsell TD, Wagner EH, Cheadle DL, Patrick DC, Martin PH, Diehr PH, Perrin EB, Kristal AR, Allan-Andrilla CH, Dey LJ: Selected methodological issues in evaluating communitybased health promotion and disease prevention programs. Annu Rev Public Health13:31-57, 1992.
20.
20. Lipsey MS, Sechrest L, Perrin E, Bunker J: Theory as method: Small theories of treatment. AHCPR Conference Proceedings, Research Methodology: Strengthening Causal Interpretations of Non-experimental Data. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 90-3454, 1990, pp. 33-51.
21.
21. Helitzer DL, Davis SM, Gittlesohn J, Going SB, Murray DM, Snyder P, Steckler AB: Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr69:816S-821S, 1999.
