1 Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
2 Johnson & Johnson, Health and Wellness Solutions Inc, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Am J Health Promot. 2019 Jan;33(1):118-130. doi: 10.1177/0890117118776875. Epub 2018 May 28.
Programs focused on employee well-being have gained momentum in recent years, but few have been rigorously evaluated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of an intervention designed to enhance vitality and purpose in life by assessing changes in employee quality of life (QoL) and health-related behaviors.
A worksite-based randomized controlled trial.
Twelve eligible worksites (8 randomized to the intervention group [IG] and 4 to the wait-listed control group [CG]).
Employees (n = 240) at the randomized worksites.
A 2.5-day group-based behavioral intervention.
Rand Medical Outcomes Survey (MOS) 36-item Short-Form (SF-36) vitality and QoL measures, Ryff Purpose in Life Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies questionnaire for depression, MOS sleep, body weight, physical activity, diet quality, and blood measures for glucose and lipids (which were used to calculate a cardiometabolic risk score) obtained at baseline and 6 months.
General linear mixed models were used to compare least squares means or prevalence differences in outcomes between IG and CG participants.
As compared to CG, IG had a significantly higher mean 6-month change on the SF-36 vitality scale ( P = .003) and scored in the highest categories for 5 of the remaining 7 SF-36 domains: general health ( P = .014), mental health ( P = .027), absence of role limitations due to physical problems ( P = .026), and social functioning ( P = .007). The IG also had greater improvements in purpose in life ( P < .001) and sleep quality (index I, P = .024; index II, P = .021). No statistically significant changes were observed for weight, diet, physical activity, or cardiometabolic risk factors.
An intensive 2.5-day intervention showed improvement in employee QoL and well-being over 6 months.
近年来，关注员工健康的项目发展势头强劲，但很少有项目经过严格评估。本研究通过评估员工生活质量（QoL）和健康相关行为的变化，来评估旨在增强活力和生活目标的干预措施的有效性。
基于工作场所的随机对照试验。
符合条件的 12 个工作场所（8 个随机分配到干预组[IG]，4 个分配到候补对照组[CG]）。
随机工作场所的员工（n = 240）。
为期 2.5 天的基于小组的行为干预。
兰德医疗结果调查（MOS）36 项简短形式（SF-36）活力和 QoL 测量、Ryff 生活目标量表、流行病学研究中心抑郁问卷、MOS 睡眠、体重、身体活动、饮食质量以及血糖和血脂的血液测量（用于计算心血管代谢风险评分），在基线和 6 个月时获得。
使用一般线性混合模型比较 IG 和 CG 参与者在结果上的最小平方均值或患病率差异。
与 CG 相比，IG 在 SF-36 活力量表上的 6 个月平均变化显著更高（P =.003），在其余 7 个 SF-36 领域中的 5 个领域中得分最高：一般健康（P =.014）、心理健康（P =.027）、因身体问题导致的角色限制不存在（P =.026）和社会功能（P =.007）。IG 在生活目标方面也有更大的改善（P <.001）和睡眠质量（指数 I，P =.024；指数 II，P =.021）。体重、饮食、身体活动或心血管代谢危险因素没有观察到统计学上的显著变化。
一项强化的 2.5 天干预在 6 个月内改善了员工的 QoL 和幸福感。
