206407 Validation of a Worksite Readiness Checklist (WRCL) for implementation of health promotion programs

Wednesday, November 11, 2009: 1:10 PM

Pouran D. Faghri, MD, MS, FACSM , Allied Health Sciences/Health Promotion, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Rajashree Kotejoshyer, MS , Allied Health Sciences/Health Promotion, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Martin Cherniack, MD , Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT
David Reeves, MA , Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Suzanne Nobrega, MS , Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA
Laura Punnett, ScD , Department of Work Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA
A successful workplace health promotion (WHP) program has physical and organizational pre-requisites, although these have been insufficiently quantified. Furthermore, objective assessment of a WHP is an acknowledged challenge. We designed a worksite readiness checklist (WRCL) to assess characteristics of a workplace that are likely to influence or reflect effective health promotion program development and implementation. It was also designed to assess how employer responsibilities for health protection had been met. The WRCL has two components, each with a possible maximum score of 100. 1) The managerial interview (WRCL-INT) has four domains: health promotion (hp-30), organization (or-32.5), health & safety (hs-23.5), and supervisory (sp-14). 2) The observational assessment (WRCL-OBS) has three domains: physical environment (pe-52.5), general working conditions (wc-24.5), and safety environment (se-23).

Methods: Six nursing homes with similar demographics were identified to pilot test the WRCL. Three sites had some WHP (WHPY) activity and three sites had no WHP (WHPN). Two observers toured each center together for WRCL-OBS and three administrators at each site completed the WRCL-INT independently.

Results: The scores for WRCL-INT for WHPY sites were (hp:12.5, or:13.7, hs:16.8, sp:4.5) and for WHPN sites were (hp:7.8, or:9.3, hs:16.4, sp:4). The administrator interviews in the WHPY reflected knowledge/commitment to health promotion, and organizational flexibility, an expected finding. Except for general working conditions, WRCL-OBS scores differed modestly (scores for WHPY sites were pe:27.1, wc:7.5, se:15; and for WHPN were pe:28.3, wc:5.3, se:14.3. These post-hoc comparisons suggest that the WRCL may capture some relevant features of employer health program activity.

Learning Objectives:
1. Recognize why worksite health promotion readiness assessment should be performed prior to program development and implementation. 2. Discuss the importance of measuring the efficacy of WHP 3. Discuss how the use of a valid evaluation instrument adds credibility to worksite health promotion interventions and strengthens future funding prospects

Keywords: Health Promotion, Worksite

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: Ms Rajashree Kotejoshyer is a research assistant with the Center for Promoting Health In New England Workplace (CPH-NEW) funded by CDC/NIAOH as part of Healthy Work Initiative. She has been involved with the implementation, data collection and data analysis since the start of the project.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.