To examine the relationship between perceived workplace health support and employee productivity.
Design.
A quantitative cross-sectional study.
Setting.
Washington State agencies.
Subjects.
A total of 3528 employees from six state agencies were included in this analysis.
Measures.
Perceived workplace health support was assessed by two questions that queried respondents on how often they felt supported by the workplace for healthy living and physical activity. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire was used to measure health-related absenteeism and presenteeism in the past 7 days.
Analysis.
Multivariate linear regression was used to estimate the mean differences in productivity by levels of perceived health support.
Results.
Most participants were between 45 and 64 years of age and were predominantly non-Hispanic white. Presenteeism varied significantly by the level of perceived workplace health support, with those who felt least supported having higher presenteeism than those who felt most supported. The difference in presenteeism by perceived workplace support remained significant in models adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics (mean difference: 7.1% for support for healthy living, 95% confidence interval: 3.7%, 10.4%; 4.3% for support for physical activity, 95% confidence interval: 1.7%, 6.8%). Absenteeism was not associated with perceived workplace health support.
Conclusion.
Higher perceived workplace health support is independently associated with higher work productivity. Employers may see productivity benefit from wellness programs through improved perceptions of workplace health support.
SchultzABEdingtonDW. Employee health and presenteeism: A systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:547–579.
2.
GoetzelRZHawkinsKOzminkowskiRJWangS. The health and productivity cost burden of the “top 10” physical and mental health conditions affecting six large US employers in 1999. J Occup Environ Med.2003;45:5–14.
3.
LernerDHenkeRM. What does research tell us about depression, job performance, and work productivity?J Occup Environ Med.2008;50:401–410.
4.
HempP. Presenteeism: At work—but out of it. Harv Bus Rev.2004;82:49–58, 155.
5.
GoetzelRZLongSROzminkowskiRJ. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting US employers. J Occup Environ Med.2004;46:398–412.
LinnanLBowlingMChildressJ. Results of the 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1503–1509.
9.
Puig-RiberaAMcKennaJGilsonNBrownWJ. Change in work day step counts, wellbeing and job performance in Catalan university employees: A randomised controlled trial. Promot Educ.2008;15:11–16.
10.
BlockGSternfeldBBlockCH. Development of Alive! (A Lifestyle Intervention Via Email), and its effect on health-related quality of life, presenteeism, and other behavioral outcomes: Randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res.2008;10:e43.
11.
Von Thiele SchwarzULindforsPLundbergU. Health-related effects of worksite interventions involving physical exercise and reduced workhours. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34:179–188.
12.
CaloyerasJPLiuHExumE. Managing manifest diseases, but not health risks, saved PepsiCo money over seven years. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33:124–131.
13.
LemonSCZapkaJLiW. Step ahead a worksite obesity prevention trial among hospital employees. Am J Prev Med.2010;38:27–38.
14.
LinnanLASorensenGColditzG. Using theory to understand the multiple determinants of low participation in worksite health promotion programs. Heal Educ Behav. 2001;28:591–607.
15.
GroschJWAltermanTPetersenMRMurphyLR. Worksite health promotion programs in the US: Factors associated with availability and participation. Am J Health Promot. 1998;13:36–45.
16.
RobroekSJvan LentheFJvan EmpelenPBurdorfA. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:26.
ReillyMCZbrozekASDukesEM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993;4:353–365.
19.
ReillyMCGerlierLBrabantYBrownM. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire in Crohn's disease. Clin Ther.2008;30:393–404.
20.
ReillyMCBraccoARicciJ-F. The validity and accuracy of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire—irritable bowel syndrome version (WPAI:IBS). Aliment Pharmacol Ther.2004;20:459–467.
21.
ReillyMCGoochKLWongRL. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49:812–819.
22.
KroenkeKSpitzerRLWilliamsJBW. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–1292.
23.
HardyGEShapiroDAHaynesCERickJE. Validation of the General Health Questionnaire-12: Using a sample of employees from England's health care services. Psychol Assess. 1999;11:159–165.
24.
CostaEBarretoSMUchoaE. Is the GDS-30 better than the GHQ-12 for screening depression in elderly people in the community: The Bambui Health Aging Study (BHAS). Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18:493–503.
25.
CancelliereCCassidyJDAmmendoliaCCôtéP. Are workplace health promotion programs effective at improving presenteeism in workers: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of the literature. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:395.
26.
RiedelJEGrossmeierJHaglund-HowiesonL. Use of a normal impairment factor in quantifying avoidable productivity loss because of poor health. J Occup Environ Med.2009;51:283–295.
27.
LennemanJSchwartzSGiuseffiDLWangC. Productivity and health: An application of three perspectives to measuring productivity. J Occup Environ Med.2011;53:55–61.
28.
ShiYSearsLECoberleyCRPopeJE. The association between modifiable well-being risks and productivity: A longitudinal study in pooled employer sample. J Occup Environ Med.2013;55:353–364.
29.
TorpSGrimsmoAHagenS. Work engagement: A practical measure for workplace health promotion?Health Promot Int.2013;28:387–396.
30.
ConnVSHafdahlARCooperPS. Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med.2009;37:330–339.
31.
GoetzelRZKowlessarNMHenkeR. Six-year cost trends at PPG Industries paralleling the introduction of health promotion programs directed at cardiovascular disease prevention. J Occup Environ Med.2013;55:483–489.
32.
MillsPRKesslerRCCooperJSullivanS. Impact of a health promotion program on employee health risks and work productivity. Am J Health Promot. 2007;22:45–53.
33.
WittLBOlsenDAblahE. Motivating factors for small and midsized businesses to implement worksite health promotion. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14:876–884.
34.
HannonPAHammerbackKGarsonG. Stakeholder perspectives on workplace health promotion: A qualitative study of midsized employers in low-wage industries. Am J Health Promot. 2012;27:103–110.
35.
LaingSSHannonPATalburtA. Increasing evidence-based workplace health promotion best practices in small and low-wage companies, Mason County, Washington, 2009. Prev Chronic Dis.2012;9:E83.
36.
JørgensenMBVilladsenEBurrH. Does workplace health promotion in Denmark reach relevant target groups?Health Promot Int. In press.
37.
Basen-EngquistKHudmonKSTrippMChamberlainR. Worksite health and safety climate: Scale development and effects of a health promotion intervention. Prev Med (Baltim). 1998;27:111–119.
38.
MorganPJCollinsCEPlotnikoffRC. The impact of a workplace-based weight loss program on work-related outcomes in overweight male shift workers. J Occup Environ Med.2012;54:122–127.
39.
ZavanelaPMCrewtherBTLodoL. Health and fitness benefits of a resistance training intervention performed in the workplace. J Strength Cond Res.2012;26:811–817.
40.
EdmundsSStephensonDClowA. The effects of a physical activity intervention on employees in small and medium enterprises: A mixed methods study. Work. 2013;46:39–49.
41.
GosselinELemyreLCorneilW. Presenteeism and absenteeism: Differentiated understanding of related phenomena. J Occup Health Psychol. 2013;18:75–86.
