To identify factors related to formation, participation, and characteristics of employee advisory boards (EABs) in blue-collar worksites.
Design.
This study used a nonexperimental qualitative design to assess EAB formation, activity, and enthusiasm levels and examined those factors relative to employee participation in worksite-wide health promotion activities.
Setting.
Twenty-two blue-collar worksites with a total of 113 EAB members in the greater Seattle area.
Subjects.
Individuals who agreed to serve on EABs in the intervention worksites.
Intervention.
Participants received training in involving employees in the 5-A-Day project intervention activities.
Measures.
Measures include type of worksite, number of EAB members, method of EAB recruitment, and variables describing EAB functioning, including attendance at meetings, assistance at project activities, and level of enthusiasm.
Results.
All worksites formed EABs. There was no association between the way the EAB was formed and subsequent EAB attendance at meetings, participation in project activities, representativeness of the EAB, or level of EAB enthusiasm. Enthusiasm of the EAB was associated with employee participation, and EABs with a higher level of enthusiasm showed more participation by employees than worksites with less enthusiastic EABs.
Conclusions.
It is possible to develop participatory structures in small, blue-collar worksites. More information is needed about factors related to levels of enthusiasm of EABs.
ThompsonBKinneS. Social change theory: Applications to community health. In: BrachtN, ed. Health Promotion at the Community Level: New Advances. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1999:45–65.
2.
GeorgeMADanielMGreenLW. Appraising and funding participatory research in health promotion. Int Q Commun Health Educ. 1998–1999;18:181–197.
3.
TraversKD. Reducing inequities through participatory research and community empowerment. Health Educ Behav. 1997;24:344–356.
4.
RainsJWRayDW. Participatory action research for community health promotion. Public Health Nurs. 1995;12:256–261.
5.
ParkerEASchulzAJIsraelBAHollisR. Detroit's East Side Village Health Worker Partnership: Community-based lay health advisor intervention in an urban area. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25:24–45.
6.
DuanNFoxSADeroseKPCarsonS. Maintaining mammography adherence through telephone counseling in a church-based trial. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1468–1471.
7.
FlickLHReeseCGRogersG. Building community for health: Lessons from a seven-year-old neighborhood/university partnership. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:369–380.
8.
LinnanLAFavaJLThompsonB. Measuring participatory strategies: Instrument development for worksite populations. Health Educ Res. 1999;14:371–386.
9.
FriesEARipleyJSFigueiredoMIThompsonB. Can community organization strategies be used to implement smoking and dietary changes in a rural manufacturing work site?J Rural Health. 1999;15:413–420.
10.
StryckeerLAFosterLSPettigrewL. Steering committee enhancements on health promotion program delivery. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:437–440.
11.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Current Employment Statistics (CES). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2001.
12.
GlasgowRETerborgJRStryckerLA. Take Heart II: Replication of a worksite health promotion trial. J Behav Med. 1997;20:143–161.
13.
SorensenGThompsonBGlanzK. Work-site based cancer prevention: Primary results from the Working Well Trial. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:939–947.
14.
JefferyRWForsterJLFrenchSA. The Healthy Worker Project: A work-site intervention for weight control and smoking cessation. Am J Public Health. 1993;83:395–401.
15.
HuntMKLedermanRPotterS. Results of employee involvement in planning and implementing the Treatwell 5-a-Day worksite study. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:223–231.
16.
GlasgowRETerborgJRHollisJF. Modifying dietary and tobacco use patterns in the worksite: The Take Heart Project. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:69–82.
17.
ThompsonBShannonJBeresfordSAA. Implementation aspects of the Seattle “5 a Day” intervention project: Strategies to help employees make dietary changes. Top Clin Nutr. 1995;11:58–75.
18.
EmmonsKMThompsonBMcLerranD. The relationship between organizational characteristics and the adoption of workplace smoking policies. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:483–501.
19.
ThompsonBKinneSLewisFMWoolridgeJA. Randomized telephone smoking-intervention trial initially directed at blue-collar workers. J Nat Cancer Inst Monogr. 1993;14:105–112.
20.
TessaroIATaylorSBeltonL. Adapting a natural (lay) helpers model of change for worksite health promotion for women. Health Educ Res. 2000;15:603–614.
21.
ShaharDRKristal-BonehEFroomP. Smoking, diet, and health behaviors among lead-exposed blue-collar workers. Int J Occup Environ Health. 1999;5:101–106.
22.
FouadMNKiefeCIBartolucciAA. A hypertension control program tailored to unskilled and minority workers. Ethn Dis. 1997;7:191–199.
23.
World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 1997.
24.
KumanyikaS.Improving our diet—still a long way to go. New Engl J Med. 1996;335:738–740.
25.
AbramsDBBoutwellWBGrizzleJ. Cancer control at the workplace: The Working Well Trial. Prev Med. 1994;23:15–27.
26.
Microsoft Office 2000 [computer program]. Seattle, Wash: Microsoft Press; 2000.
27.
ThompsonBCoronadoGSnipesSPuschelK. Methodologic advances and ongoing challenges in designing community-based health promotion programs. Ann Rev Public Health. 2003;24:315–340.
28.
LinnanLASorensenGColditzGA. Using theory to understand the multiple determinants of low participation in worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 2001;28:591–607.
29.
LindseyEMcGuinnessL. Significant elements of community involvement in participatory action research: Evidence from a community project. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:1106–1114.
30.
QuandtSAArcuryTAPellAI. Something for everyone? A community and academic partnership to address farmworker pesticide exposure in North Carolina. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109(suppl 3):435–441.
31.
BraithwaiteRLBianchiCTaylorSE. Ethnographic approach to community organization and health empowerment. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:407–416.
32.
Commit Research Group. Study Protocol, Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation. Rockville, Md: National Cancer Institute; 1991.
33.
BeresfordSAAShannonJMcLerranDThomsponB. Seattle 5-a-day work-site project: Process evaluation. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:213–222.
34.
ThompsonB. The Durability of Community Interventions: What Happens When the Research Leaves?Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health; 1997.
35.
ThompsonBNettekovenLFersterD. Mobilizing the COMMIT communities for smoking control. In: ThompsonB, ed. Community-based Interventions for Smokers: The COMMIT Field Experience. Vol Monograph 6. Bethesda, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1995:53–73.
36.
PetersonAVJrKealeyKAMannSL. Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project: Long-term randomized trial in school-based tobacco use prevention—results on smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1979–1991.
37.
BienerLDePueJDEmmonsKM. Recruitment of work sites to a health promotion research trial. Implications for generalizability. J Occup Med. 1994;36:631–636.
38.
ThompsonBvan LeynseeleJBeresfordSA. Recruiting worksites to participate in a health promotion research study. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:344–351.
39.
BeresfordSAAThompsonBFengZ. Seattle 5 A Day worksite program to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Prev Med. 2001;32:230–238.
40.
CampbellMKTessaroIDeVellisB. Tailoring and targeting a worksite health promotion program to address multiple health behaviors among blue-collar women. Am J Health Promot. 2000;14:306–313.
41.
MarcusBHEmmonsKMSimkin-SilvermanLR. Evaluation of motivationally tailored vs. standard self-help physical activity interventions at the workplace. Am J Health Promot. 1998;12:246–253.
