The Psychosocial, Organizational, and Environmental Stressors Experienced by Food Service Workers in a Hospital Setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To identify stressors faced by hospital food service workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic and effective interventions mitigating these stressors. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted surveys ( n = 305) and interviews ( n = 9) in the summer and fall of 2022 with employees in hospital settings to determine the psychosocial, organizational, and environmental stressors they faced during the COVID-19 pandemic and interventions that improved health and well-being. Findings: The main stressors reported were fear of infection, increased work demands and schedule unpredictability, and financial insecurity. Employee well-being was bolstered by regular, clear, bidirectional communication; a sense of community and purpose; benefits like paid sick leave and health insurance coverage; and organizational policies that included masking and vaccine requirements demonstrating commitment to protecting worker health. Conclusion: Organizations can play a critical role in guarding the health, well-being, and resilience of frontline workers.

Scoping Review of Workplace Mental Health and Well-being Programs in Higher Education Institutions.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to conduct a scoping review of stressors in higher education institutions (HEIs), exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to identify successful interventions. METHODS: We reviewed 79 studies published between January 2020 and January 2023. RESULTS: Stressors were organized into psychosocial, organizational, and environmental categories. They included high job demand/low control, work/personal life imbalance, pressure to publish, lack of resources, low perceived organizational support, and fear of infection. Interventions included providing back-up childcare, employee assistance programs, financial well-being resources, paid medical leave, flexible work arrangements, greater transparency in decision making, leadership development, and adaptive physical space design. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health and well-being interventions directed at faculty and staff in HEIs are needed given the many stressors faced by this workforce. Several interventions are highlighted in the literature, but most are speculative regarding their impact, given the limited number of outcome studies.

Addressing Psychosocial, Organizational, and Environmental Stressors Emerging From the COVID-19 Pandemic and Their Effect on Essential Workers' Mental Health and Well-being: A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify stressors faced by essential workers amid the coronavirus disease pandemic and effective interventions mitigating these stressors. METHODS: We reviewed literature on psychosocial, organizational, and environmental stressors faced by essential workers during the pandemic, the consequences of those stressors, and interventions to improve worker health and well-being. FINDINGS: Stressors included elevated risk of coronavirus disease 2019 exposure, fear of spreading the virus, lack of social and organizational supports, and financial insecurity. Negative outcomes included burnout, depression, and high turnover. Promising interventions included robust safety protocols, increased wages, childcare benefits, enhanced access to mental health services, and frequent leadership communications. CONCLUSION: Stress has taken a heavy toll on essential workers' physical and emotional health, productivity, and job satisfaction. To effectively protect Total Worker Health, employers should adopt evidence-based interventions promoting psychosocial, organizational, and environmental health and safety.

The CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard: A Tool to Advance Workplace Health Promotion Programs and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: The CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard (ScoreCard) is a free, publicly available survey tool designed to help employers assess the extent to which they have implemented evidence-based interventions or strategies at their worksites to improve the health and well-being of employees. We examined how, how broadly, and to what effect the ScoreCard has been applied. METHODS: We analyzed peer-reviewed and grey literature along with the ScoreCard database of online submissions from January 2012 through January 2021. Our inclusion criteria were workplace settings, adult working populations, and explicit use of the ScoreCard. RESULTS: We found that the ScoreCard had been used in 1) surveillance efforts by states, 2) health promotion training and technical assistance, 3) research on workplace health promotion program effectiveness, and 4) employer efforts to improve program design, implementation, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: The ScoreCard has been used as intended to support the development, planning, monitoring, and continuous improvement of workplace health promotion programs. Our review revealed gaps in the tool and opportunities to improve it by 1) enhancing surveillance efforts, 2) engaging employers in low-wage industries, 3) adding new questions or topic areas, and 4) conducting quantitative studies on the relationship between improvements in the ScoreCard and employee health and well-being outcomes.

Reliability and Validity of the American Heart Association's Workplace Health Achievement Index.

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of the American Heart Association's (AHA) updated Workplace Health Achievement Index (WHAI). METHODS: We piloted the updated WHAI with respondent pairs at 94 organizations, and examined the inter-rater reliability (percent agreement) for each item on the survey. To evaluate face and content validity, we conducted preliminary focus groups pre-survey, and follow-up cognitive interviews post-survey administration. RESULTS: Respondents found the updated WHAI to be comprehensive and useful in identifying gaps and opportunities for improving their health and wellbeing programs. The mean percent agreement on all items was 73.1%. Only 9% (or 14 items out of 146) had poor inter-rater reliability (below 61 percent agreement), but through follow-up cognitive interviews we determined that most were due to artifacts of the study design or were resolved through minor revisions to the survey question, instructions, and/or adding examples for clarity. Only 1 question was deleted due to lack of relevance. CONCLUSION: The updated WHAI is a valid and reliable tool for employers to assess how well they promote the health and wellbeing of their employees.

Organizational Best Practices Supporting Mental Health in the Workplace.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a narrative review of best and promising practices for achieving exemplary mental health in the workplace as the foundation for the inaugural Carolyn C. Mattingly Award for Mental Health in the Workplace. METHODS: Research was drawn from peer-reviewed articles using the search terms associated with workplace mental health. RESULTS: Eight categories of best practices were identified: (1) culture, (2) robust mental health benefits, (3) mental health resources, (4) workplace policies and practices, (5) healthy work environment, (6) leadership support, (7) outcomes measurement, and (8) innovation. CONCLUSION: The review provided the scientific backing to support criteria developed for the Carolyn C. Mattingly Award for Mental Health in the Workplace. By recognizing organizations that apply evidence-based practices in their health and well-being programs, the Mattingly Award may inspire employers to adopt best practices.

Why Should Businesses Support Public Health?

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a unique opportunity to gain support from the business community for rebuilding a more effective and resilient public health infrastructure in the U.S. This commentary provides the rationale for more engaged business involvement in efforts to promote public health during the time of COVID-19. Drawing on the current pandemic, the commentary highlights the implications of a fragmented public health system for businesses and the nation at large, the shortcomings of which are apparent as never before.

Ten Modifiable Health Risk Factors and Employees' Medical Costs-An Update.

PURPOSE: To estimate the relationship between employees' health risks and health-care costs to inform health promotion program design. DESIGN: An observational study of person-level health-care claims and health risk assessment (HRA) data that used regression models to estimate the relationship between 10 modifiable risk factors and subsequent year 1 health-care costs. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: The sample included active, full-time, adult employees continuously enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance plans contributing to IBM MarketScan Research Databases who completed an HRA. Study criteria were met by 135 219 employees from 11 employers. MEASURES: Ten modifiable risk factors and individual sociodemographic and health characteristics were included in the models as independent variables. Five settings of health-care costs were outcomes in addition to total expenditures. ANALYSIS: After building the analytic file, we estimated generalized linear models and conducted postestimation bootstrapping. RESULTS: Health-care costs were significantly higher for employees at higher risk for blood glucose, obesity, stress, depression, and physical inactivity (all at P < .0001) than for those at lower risk. Similar cost differentials were found when specific health-care services were examined. CONCLUSION: Employers may achieve cost savings in the short run by implementing comprehensive health promotion programs that focus on decreasing multiple health risks.

Commentary on the Study: "What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence From the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study".

Recently, several high-profile randomized clinical trials conducted with employees at the University of Illinois and BJ's Wholesale Club have questioned the value of workplace health and well-being programs. This commentary focuses on the latest research published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by authors Jones, Molitor, and Reif who evaluated the iThrive wellness program. The commentary challenges the study's main finding that wellness programs (in general) do not work. Several perspectives are explored including whether the evaluated programs are well-designed, sufficiently potent, and appropriate candidates for randomized trials. The article also asks what role employers can or should play in improving the health and well-being of Americans given recent troubling statistics showing a decline in life expectancy and an increase in health risks.

The American Heart Association 2030 Impact Goal: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Each decade, the American Heart Association (AHA) develops an Impact Goal to guide its overall strategic direction and investments in its research, quality improvement, advocacy, and public health programs. Guided by the AHA's new Mission Statement, to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives, the 2030 Impact Goal is anchored in an understanding that to achieve cardiovascular health for all, the AHA must include a broader vision of health and well-being and emphasize health equity. In the next decade, by 2030, the AHA will strive to equitably increase healthy life expectancy beyond current projections, with global and local collaborators, from 66 years of age to at least 68 years of age across the United States and from 64 years of age to at least 67 years of age worldwide. The AHA commits to developing additional targets for equity and well-being to accompany this overarching Impact Goal. To attain the 2030 Impact Goal, we recommend a thoughtful evaluation of interventions available to the public, patients, providers, healthcare delivery systems, communities, policy makers, and legislators. This presidential advisory summarizes the task force's main considerations in determining the 2030 Impact Goal and the metrics to monitor progress. It describes the aspiration that these goals will be achieved by working with a diverse community of volunteers, patients, scientists, healthcare professionals, and partner organizations needed to ensure success.

Validity and Reliability of the Updated CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the updated 2019 CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard (CDC ScoreCard), which includes four new modules. METHODS: We pilot tested the updated instrument at 93 worksites, examining question response concurrence between two representatives from each worksite. We conducted cognitive interviews and site visits to evaluate face validity, and refined the instrument for public distribution. RESULTS: The mean question concurrence rate was 73.4%. Respondents reported the tool to be useful for assessing current workplace programs and planning future initiatives. On average, 43% of possible interventions included in the CDC ScoreCard were in place at the pilot sites. CONCLUSION: The updated CDC ScoreCard is a valid and reliable tool for assessing worksite health promotion policies, educational and lifestyle counseling programs, environmental supports, and health benefits.