Dataset Information

Local Health Departments' Capacity for Workplace Health Promotion Programs to Prevent Chronic Disease: Comparison of Rural, Micropolitan, and Urban Contexts.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine local health department (LHD) contexts, capacity for, and interest in partnering with employers on workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) for chronic disease prevention.

Design

Qualitative interviews with LHD directors.

Setting

LHDs from 21 counties in 10 states.

Participants

Twenty-one LHD directors.

Main outcome measuress

Experiences and perceptions of existing partnerships, decision making, funding, data needs, and organizational capacity for WHPP partnerships with employers.

Results

We identified 3 themes: (1) LHDs see the value of partnering with employers but lack the capacity to do so effectively; (2) while LHDs base priorities on community need, funding ultimately drives decision making; and (3) rural, micropolitan, and urban LHDs differ in their readiness and capacity to work with employers.

Conclusions

Understanding LHDs' partnership capacity and context is essential to the successful implementation of WHPP partnerships with employers. Expanding these partnerships may require additional financial investments, particularly among rural LHDs.

SUBMITTER: Brown MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8670205 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep-Oct 01

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Local Health Departments' Capacity for Workplace Health Promotion Programs to Prevent Chronic Disease: Comparison of Rural, Micropolitan, and Urban Contexts.

Brown Meagan C MC Kava Christine C Bekemeier Betty B Ornelas India J IJ Harris Jeffrey R JR Chan Kwun C G KCG Robertson Meg M Hannon Peggy A PA

Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP 20210901 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine local health department (LHD) contexts, capacity for, and interest in partnering with employers on workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) for chronic disease prevention.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative interviews with LHD directors.<h4>Setting</h4>LHDs from 21 counties in 10 states.<h4>Participants</h4>Twenty-one LHD directors.<h4>Main outcome measuress</h4>Experiences and perceptions of existing partnerships, decision making, funding, data needs, and organizational c ...[more]

PMID: 32487926

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundState and Territorial Health Departments (SHDs) have a unique role in protecting and promoting workers' health. This mixed-methods study presents the first systematic investigation of SHDs' activities and capacity in both Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) and Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) in the United States (US).MethodsNational survey of OSH and WHP practitioners from each of 56 SHDs, followed by in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents. We calculated descriptive statistics for survey variables and conducted conventional content analysis of interviews.ResultsSeventy percent (n = 39) of OSH and 71% (n = 40) of WHP contacts responded to the survey. Twenty-seven (n = 14 OSH, n = 13 WHP) participated in follow-up interviews. Despite limited funding, staffing, or organizational support, SHDs reported a wide array of activities. We assessed OSH and WHP surveillance activities, support that SHDs provided to employers to implement OSH and WHP interventions (implementation support), OSH and WHP services provided directly to workers, OSH follow-back investigations, and OSH standard and policy development. Each of the categories we asked about (excluding OSH standard and policy development) were performed by more than half of responding SHDs. Surveillance was the area of greatest OSH activity, while implementation support was the area of greatest WHP activity. Respondents characterized their overall capacity as low. Thirty percent (n = 9) of WHP and 19% (n = 6) of OSH respondents reported no funds at all for OSH/WHP work, and both groups reported a median 1.0 FTEs working on OSH/WHP at the SHD. Organizational support for OSH and WHP was characterized as "low" to "moderate". To increase SHDs' capacity for OSH and WHP, interview respondents recommended that OSH and WHP approaches be better integrated into other public health initiatives (e.g., infectious disease prevention), and that federal funding for OSH and WHP increase. They also discussed specific recommendations for improving the accessibility and utility of existing funding mechanisms, and the educational resources they desired from the CDC.ConclusionsResults revealed current activities and specific strategies for increasing capacity of SHDs to promote the safety and health of workers and workplaces - an important public health setting for reducing acute injury and chronic disease.

Project description:BackgroundPresenteeism is highly prevalent and costly to employers. It is defined as being present at work, but limited in some aspect of job performance by a health problem.Workplace health promotion (WHP) is a common strategy used to enhance on-the-job productivity. The primary objective is to determine if WHP programs are effective in improving presenteeism. The secondary objectives are to identify characteristics of successful programs and potential risk factors for presenteeism.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, Medline, and other electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2010. Reference lists were examined, key journals were hand-searched and experts were contacted. Included studies were original research that contained data on at least 20 participants (? 18 years of age), and examined the impacts of WHP programs implemented at the workplace. The Effective Public Health Practice Project Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to rate studies. 'Strong' and 'moderate' studies were abstracted into evidence tables, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. Interventions were deemed successful if they improved the outcome of interest. Their program components were identified, as were possible risk factors contributing to presenteeism.ResultsAfter 2,032 titles and abstracts were screened, 47 articles were reviewed, and 14 were accepted (4 strong and 10 moderate studies). These studies contained preliminary evidence for a positive effect of some WHP programs. Successful programs offered organizational leadership, health risk screening, individually tailored programs, and a supportive workplace culture. Potential risk factors contributing to presenteeism included being overweight, a poor diet, a lack of exercise, high stress, and poor relations with co-workers and management.LimitationsThis review is limited to English publications. A large number of reviewed studies (70%) were inadmissible due to issues of bias, thus limiting the amount of primary evidence. The uncertainties surrounding presenteeism measurement is of significant concern as a source of bias.ConclusionsThe presenteeism literature is young and heterogeneous. There is preliminary evidence that some WHP programs can positively affect presenteeism and that certain risk factors are of importance. Future research would benefit from standard presenteeism metrics and studies conducted across a broad range of workplace settings.

Project description:BackgroundThe Worksite Health Promotion Capacity Instrument (WHPCI) was developed to assess two key factors for effective worksite health promotion: collective willingness and the systematic implementation of health promotion activities in companies. This study evaluates the diagnostic qualities of the WHPCI based on its subscales Health Promotion Willingness and Health Promotion Management, which can be used to place companies into four different categories based on their level of health promotion capacity.MethodsPsychometric evaluation was conducted using exploratory factor and reliability analyses with data taken from a random sample of managers from n = 522 German information and communication technology (ICT) companies. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to determine further diagnostic qualities of the instrument and to establish the cut-off scores used to determine each company's level of health promotion capacity.ResultsThe instrument's subscales, Health Promotion Willingness and Health Promotion Management, are based on one-dimensional constructs, each with very good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83/0.91). ROC analyses demonstrated satisfactory diagnostic accuracy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.76 (SE = 0.021; 95% CI 0.72-0.80) for the Health Promotion Willingness scale and 0.81 (SE = 0.021; 95% CI 0.77-0.86) for the Health Promotion Management scale. A cut-off score with good sensitivity (71%/76%) and specificity (69%/75%) was determined for each scale. Both scales were found to have good predictive power and exhibited good efficiency.ConclusionsOur findings indicate preliminary evidence for the validity and reliability of both subscales of the WHPCI. The goodness of each cut-off score suggests that the scales are appropriate for determining companies' levels of health promotion capacity. Support in implementing (systematic) worksite health promotion can then be tailored to each company's needs based on their current capacity level.

Dataset Information

Local Health Departments' Capacity for Workplace Health Promotion Programs to Prevent Chronic Disease: Comparison of Rural, Micropolitan, and Urban Contexts.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measuress

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Local Health Departments' Capacity for Workplace Health Promotion Programs to Prevent Chronic Disease: Comparison of Rural, Micropolitan, and Urban Contexts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets