Department of Finance and Banking, WSB University in Poznań, 61-895 Poznań, Poland.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jan 6;18(2):383. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020383.
The main purpose of the paper is to identify the outcomes for employers and employees indicated in research related to workplace health promotion interventions (WHPIs). We investigated what methods are used and what types of organization this type of research is most often carried out in. In addition, the authors attempted to assess to what extent the methods used in the previous research prove the effectiveness of the implemented WHPIs. A systematic review of English-language papers (2000-2020) focused on types of health-promoting interventions in the workplace, and outcomes for employers and employees were conducted using the SCOPUS database ( 260). As a result, 29 texts qualified for a final qualitative synthesis of the results. The analyses were most frequently conducted in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) based on both quantitative and qualitative methods. In order to draw conclusions, analyses were made by classifying the research presented in the texts according to the type of intervention implemented, classifying the outcomes identified, and indicating the type of evaluation made by the researcher. The analysis showed that most of the outcomes presented refer to changes in the strategy and organizational culture, as well as the behavior of employees. In 18 studies, the indication of outcomes resulted directly from the evaluation outcomes. In other cases, the outcomes were identified by an evaluation of the process or structure of WHPI. The conducted analysis showed significant diversity in terms of the outcomes measured and the research methods used. The quasi-experimental methods, randomly controlled cluster trials, or cross-sectorial studies used in the study to confirm the effectiveness of WHPI were used only in every third study. In these studies, measurements were usually performed twice: at baseline and after intervention. The majority of studies confirmed that WHPIs led to a positive change in the healthy behavior of employees and effected an organizational change, and more rarely led to savings or a reduction in costs resulting from sickness absenteeism, presentism, turnover, etc., and return on investment (ROI). The article shows the need to conduct further research towards the development of guidelines for the evaluation of the effectiveness of implemented programs.
本文的主要目的是确定与工作场所健康促进干预（WHPIs）相关的研究中指出的雇主和员工的结果。我们调查了使用了哪些方法，以及这种类型的研究最常在何种类型的组织中进行。此外，作者还试图评估以前研究中使用的方法在多大程度上证明了实施的 WHPIs 的有效性。使用 SCOPUS 数据库（260 篇）对 2000-2020 年期间发表的英文论文进行了系统回顾，重点关注工作场所的健康促进干预类型以及雇主和员工的结果。最终有 29 篇文章符合对结果进行最终定性综合分析的条件。分析主要基于定量和定性方法在中小企业（SMEs）中进行。为了得出结论，对文本中呈现的研究根据实施的干预类型进行分类，对确定的结果进行分类，并指出研究人员进行的评估类型，从而进行了分析。分析表明，呈现的大多数结果都涉及战略和组织文化的变化，以及员工的行为。在 18 项研究中，结果的指示直接来自于评估结果。在其他情况下，通过对 WHPI 过程或结构的评估来确定结果。所进行的分析表明，所衡量的结果和使用的研究方法存在显著差异。在研究中用于确认 WHPI 有效性的准实验方法、随机对照群试验或跨部门研究仅在每三分之一的研究中使用。在这些研究中，测量通常进行两次：基线和干预后。大多数研究证实 WHPIs 导致员工健康行为的积极变化，并带来组织变革，而更罕见的是导致因疾病缺勤、出勤主义、人员流动等导致的节省或成本降低，以及投资回报率（ROI）。本文表明，需要进一步研究制定实施计划有效性评估指南。
