ArticleBMC public health2019
Evaluation of Get Healthy at Work, a state-wide workplace health promotion program in Australia.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Scoping review to assess the reach, effectiveness, and impact of government-funded, population-based physical activity initiatives in Australian adults.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators.PLoS medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Integrating Occupational Health and Safety and Health Promotion: A Qualitative Study in Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the implementation of workplace-based health interventions for non-communicable disease prevention: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Identification of needs of integrated approaches of occupational health and safety and health promotion.Health promotion perspectives · 2025Article
- Leading wellness in healthcare: A qualitative study of leadership practices for wellness in hospital settings.PloS one · 2023Article
- The SEED Wellness Model: A Workplace Approach to Address Wellbeing Needs of Healthcare Staff During Crisis and Beyond.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of workplace health promotion programs: Employers' perceptions.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Service provider perspectives on implementing the NSW Get Healthy at Work program.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2021Article
- Evidence of Better Psychological Profile in Working Population Meeting Current Physical Activity Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- How and When Health-Promoting Leadership Facilitates Employee Health Status: The Critical Role of Healthy Climate and Work Unit Structure.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Size Matters: A Latent Class Analysis of Workplace Health Promotion Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Likelihood of Action in Small Workplaces.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWorkplace health programs (WHPs) may improve adult health but very little evidence exists on multi-level WHPs implemented at-scale and so the relationship between program implementation factors and outcomes of WHPs are poorly understood. This study evaluated Get Healthy at Work (GHaW), a state-wide government-funded WHP in Australia.
methodsA mixed-method design included a longitudinal quasi-experimental survey of businesses registered with GHaW and a comparison group of businesses surveyed over a 12-month period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key contacts and employees of selected intervention group businesses and the service providers of the program were conducted to assess program adoption and adaptation.
resultsPositive business-level changes in workplace culture were observed over time among GHaW businesses compared with the control group. Multilevel regression modelling revealed perceptions that employees were generally healthy (p = 0.045 timeXgroup effect) and that the workplace promoted healthy behaviours (p = 0.004 timeXgroup effect) improved significantly while the control group reported no change in work culture perceptions. Changes in perceptions about work productivity were not observed; however only one third of businesses registered for the program had adopted GHaW during the evaluation period. Qualitative results revealed a number of factors contributing to program adoption: which depended on program delivery (e.g., logistics, technology and communication channels), design features of the program, and organisational factors (primarily business size and previous experience of WHPs).
conclusionsEvaluation of program factors is important to improve program delivery and uptake and to ensure greater scalability. GHaW has the potential to improve workplace health culture, which may lead to better health promoting work environments. These results imply that government can play a central role in enabling prioritisation and incentivising health promotion in the workplace.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.