Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31007038›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2019

Results of the Workplace Health in America Survey.

Laura A Linnan, Laurie Cluff, Jason E Lang, Michael Penne, Maija S Leff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pathways to Employee Outcomes in a Workplace Health Promotion Program.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2022
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Employment Characteristics and Tobacco Product Use, U.S., 2021.American journal of preventive medicine · 2024
    Article
  9. The Potentials of Digital Workplace Health Promotion.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Association of Workplace Culture of Health and Employee Emotional Wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Laura A Linnan1 Department of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Laurie Cluff2 Social Policy, Health, & Economics Research Unit, RTI International, Holly Springs, NC, USA.
Jason E Lang3 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Michael Penne4 Behavioral Statistics Program, RTI International, Holly Springs, NC, USA.
Maija S Leff1 Department of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2127-7565

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide a nationally representative snapshot of workplace health promotion (WHP) and protection practices among United States worksites.

designCross-sectional, self-report Workplace Health in America (WHA) Survey between November 2016 and September 2017.

settingNational.

participantsRandom sample of US worksites with ≥10 employees, stratified by region, size, and North American Industrial Classification System sector. MEASURES: Workplace health promotion programs, program administration, evidence-based strategies, health screenings, disease management, incentives, work-life policies, implementation barriers, and occupational safety and health (OSH). ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics, t tests, and logistic regression.

resultsAmong eligible worksites, 10.1% (n = 3109) responded, 2843 retained in final sample, and 46.1% offered some type of WHP program. The proportion of comparable worksites with comprehensive programs (as defined in Healthy People 2010) rose from 6.9% in 2004 to 17.1% in 2017 ( P < .001). Occupational safety and health programs were more prevalent than WHP programs, and 83.5% of all worksites had an individual responsible for employee safety, while only 72.2% of those with a WHP program had an individual responsible for it. Smaller worksites were less likely than larger to offer most programs.

conclusionThe prevalence of WHP programs has increased but remains low across most health programs; few worksites have comprehensive programs. Smaller worksites have persistent deficits and require targeted approaches; integrated OSH and WHP efforts may help. Ongoing monitoring using the WHA Survey benchmarks OSH and WHP in US worksites, updates estimates from previous surveys, and identifies gaps in research and practice.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthCross-Sectional StudiesDisease ManagementHealth PromotionHumansIndustryLogistic ModelsMass ScreeningOccupational Health ServicesResidence CharacteristicsUnited StatesWorkplaceCenters for Disease Control and Preventioncross-sectional surveyemployer surveysNational Institute for Occupational Safety and Healthoccupational safety and healthpublic health surveillancesurveys and questionnaireswork–life balanceworkplace health promotion

Identifiers

PMID31007038
PMCPMC6643274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.