INTRODUCTION

On May 26, 2020, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a research article titled “Effects of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health, Health Beliefs, and Use doctor”. The article described a two-year randomized clinical trial of 4,834 employees at a large US university.

The result was the following:

Employees who joined the wellness program did not show significant differences in biometrics, medical diagnoses, or medical use relative to the control group. The intervention increased self-reports of having a primary care physician … but did not significantly affect clinical outcomes.

The JAMA issue also contained a guest commentary by Jean Marie Abraham entitled “Evaluating the effectiveness of the employer wellness program: where should employers invest?”

The author preceded her comment with this general description:

Today, most large American employers offer their workers access to wellness programs as part of their compensation. These programs generally include a coordinated set of activities for employees to assess their health risks and engage in lifestyle behavior modification. Historically, employers’ investments in these programs have been motivated by the prospect of an economic return in the form of lower medical costs for workers and higher worker productivity as a result of disease prevention or better condition management. , such as diabetes, heart disease, depression, and low back pain.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WELLNESS IN THE WORKPLACE

Since the first workplace wellness programs were introduced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, enthusiasts and skeptics have debated their usefulness. Differences abound over almost every aspect of the church’s welfare.

Enthusiasts and non-sayers can’t agree on much, and they particularly disagree on:

  • If workplace wellness benefits the sponsoring organization, that is, it generates positive returns on investments.

  • If employees become healthier as a result of participation.

  • What incentives, if any, are effective in motivating workers to participate in such offers?

  • If and to what extent productivity, morale and / or other factors are affected, for better or for worse.

Naturally, wellness advocates, particularly those supported directly or indirectly by wellness in the workplace, are enthusiastic and think that programs, if done well, are gloriously wonderful and beneficial. Almost all wellness promoters speak eloquently about benefits for participants, businesses, the community, the nation, and even the planet. The detractors are not impressed; some go so far as to proclaim that workplace wellness does more harm than good.

So what is the reality?

Well, you’ve come to the right place to find out. The short answer is this: We do not know.

But, you might ask, what about the JAMA study mentioned above and the evaluation of it? Don’t these recent academic research projects answer these questions?

No, they don’t and I can explain why not.

For nearly fifty years, I have promoted the idea that wellness educational offerings in the workplace should be completely separate from so-called medically-based wellness programs, which are almost always dominated by medical personnel performing medical activities. The study and the report on it show that nothing has changed, although the consideration now turns to what kind of goal posts to erect as performance measures.

Guest comment notes that the CDC suggests that wellness programs should be further diluted, homeopathically, with other fringe benefits (eg, health insurance, employee assistance programs). Doing so would only ensure that there are no genuine wellness molecules left in any of these offerings.

A TRUE ASSESSMENT OF THE WELLNESS OF STUDIES

The JAMA article is a waste of words. The authors do not know what they are talking about. The study design is weak because your thinking about wellness is weak. If public funds were used for this project, those responsible must be prosecuted.

Although the study evaluated programs with the name wellness In addition, the programs described were almost entirely prevention, medical compliance and risk reduction, not health improvement, not activities that have a lot to do with the enjoyment of life or that otherwise focus on positive education for children. welfare. The commenter claimed that more than 80 percent of reform attempts fail to achieve lasting change. I would be surprised if a program like this bogus workplace wellness effort would allow employees to understand and make REAL wellness commitments as part of their everyday lives.

It would be more than enough to offer an education that allows people to improve their reasoning skills. No such efforts were observed in the surveyed program. How about increasing the chances for employees to enjoy a more exuberant life from work? None of that was noticed. How about a growing interest and skills in exercising as part of daily life and even as methods of selecting healthy meals? Some of those efforts were included, but they were diluted by all the medical testing and training to avoid illness. There does not appear to have been any attention paid to teaching personal strategies to increase the freedoms to live more in line with the way employees would like to live.

recommendations

Workplace wellness leaders might consider the following reforms:


Keep the medical and prevention offerings out there, but separate them all from positive wellness education, defining REAL wellness in a way that eliminates the grab bag concept of risk reduction and general health education offerings.


Don’t expect short-term medical improvements regarding disease, focus on biometric measures of well-being, physical and mental.

  • Don’t expect medical or financial outcomes, but give employees options and make sure options are the kind that appeal to workers. You will not have to pay people to learn, practice and maintain attitudes and behaviors that provide quality of life and satisfactory performance. Why continue with efforts that only 32% of employees believe will improve their lifestyles or (40%) say will meet their needs?


Wellness programs should focus on reason (critical thinking skills), exuberance (happiness / meaning, etc.), athletics (exercise and nutrition), and freedom or how to gain greater personal freedoms.

Cultural and other supports are essential. Most of us who enjoy effective lifestyles start on those paths from the splendid modeling of influential people in our early lives, and the environments (people and resources) that made flourishing easy and natural.

All of this will require strong support from company leaders.

Dr. Judd Allen commented on my criticism of this study, suggesting that when people become part of environments and support groups that exhibit healthy attitudes and behaviors, they are much more likely to value their well-being.

Let’s hear it for REAL cultural support and wellness. Medical and prevention programs disguised as wellness have no chance to reach the hearts and minds of employees.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *