Journal Article

Evaluation of the implementation of 'Get Healthy at Work', a workplace health promotion program in New South Wales, Australia

Chris Rissel, Claire Portors, Devon Indig, Anne Grunseit, Sinead McElduff, Ismail Ibrahim, Santosh Khanal, Beverley Lloyd

2016

Overview

Issue addressed: Get Healthy at Work (GHaW) is a statewide program to reduce chronic disease risk among NSW workers by helping them make small changes to modifiable lifestyle chronic disease risk factors and create workplace environments that support healthy lifestyles. It has two primary components: a workplace health program (WHP) for businesses and online or face-to-face Brief Health Checks (BHCs) for workers. In this paper, we discuss our evaluation to identify areas for improvement in the implementation of WHP and to assess the uptake of BHCs by workers. Methods: Routinely collected WHP and BHC program data between July 2014 and February 2016 were analysed. A baseline online survey regarding workplace health promotion was conducted with 247 key contacts at registered GHaW worksites and a control group of 400 key contacts from a range of businesses. Seven telephone interviews were conducted with service provider key contacts. Results: As at February 2016, 3133 worksites (from 1199 businesses) across NSW had registered for GHaW, of which 36.8% started the program. Similar proportions of GHaW (34.0%) and control (31.7%) businesses had existing WHPs. BHCs were completed by 12 740 workers, and of those whose risks were assessed, 78.9% had moderate or high risk of diabetes and 33.6% had increased or high risk of cardiovascular disease. Approximately half (50.6%) of eligible BHC participants were referred to Get Healthy Information and Coaching Service (GHS) and 37.7% to Quitline. The uptake of face-to-face BHCs compared with online was significantly higher for males, people aged over 35 years, those undertaking less physical activity and those less likely to undertake active travel to work. Service providers suggested that the program's structured five-step pathway did not offer adequate flexibility to support worksites' progress through the program. Conclusions: During the evaluation period, a substantial number of NSW worksites registered for GHaW but their progress was slow because of the limited flexibility offered by the program model.

• Subject: Chronic diseases / Employee health promotion / Evaluation / Health promotion / Methodology / Prevention