Improving low-wage, midsized employers' health promotion practices: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) offers evidence-based intervention strategies to prevent chronic disease. The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the University of Washington Health Promotion Research Center co-developed ACS Workplace Solutions (WPS) to improve workplaces' implementation of Community Guide strategies. PURPOSE: To test the effectiveness of WPS for midsized employers in low-wage industries. DESIGN: Two-arm RCT; workplaces were randomized to receive WPS during the study (intervention group) or at the end of the study (delayed control group). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Forty-eight midsized employers (100-999 workers) in King County WA. INTERVENTION: WPS provides employers one-on-one consulting with an ACS interventionist via three meetings at the workplace. The interventionist recommends best practices to adopt based on the workplace's current practices, provides implementation toolkits for the best practices the employer chooses to adopt, conducts a follow-up visit at 6 months, and provides technical assistance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Employers' implementation of 16 best practices (in the categories of insurance benefits, health-related policies, programs, tracking, and health communications) at baseline (June 2007-June 2008) and 15-month follow-up (October 2008-December 2009). Data were analyzed in 2010-2011. RESULTS: Intervention employers demonstrated greater improvement from baseline than control employers in two of the five best-practice categories; implementing policies (baseline scores: 39% program, 43% control; follow-up scores: 49% program, 45% control; p=0.013) and communications (baseline scores: 42% program, 44% control; follow-up scores: 76% program, 55% control; p=0.007). Total best-practice implementation improvement did not differ between study groups (baseline scores: 32% intervention, 37% control; follow-up scores: 39% intervention, 42% control; p=0.328). CONCLUSIONS: WPS improved employers' health-related policies and communications but did not improve insurance benefits design, programs, or tracking. Many employers were unable to modify insurance benefits and reported that the time and costs of implementing best practices were major barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00452816.

A framework for disseminating evidence-based health promotion practices.

Wider adoption of evidence-based, health promotion practices depends on developing and testing effective dissemination approaches. To assist in developing these approaches, we created a practical framework drawn from the literature on dissemination and our experiences disseminating evidence-based practices. The main elements of our framework are 1) a close partnership between researchers and a disseminating organization that takes ownership of the dissemination process and 2) use of social marketing principles to work closely with potential user organizations. We present 2 examples illustrating the framework: EnhanceFitness, for physical activity among older adults, and American Cancer Society Workplace Solutions, for chronic disease prevention among workers. We also discuss 7 practical roles that researchers play in dissemination and related research: sorting through the evidence, conducting formative research, assessing readiness of user organizations, balancing fidelity and reinvention, monitoring and evaluating, influencing the outer context, and testing dissemination approaches.

Workplace health promotion in Washington State.

The workplace is a powerful setting to reach large numbers of at-risk adults with effective chronic disease prevention programs. Missed preventive care is a particular problem for workers with low income and no health insurance. The costs of chronic diseases among workers--including health care costs, productivity losses, and employee turnover--have prompted employers to seek health promotion interventions that are both effective and cost-effective. The workplace offers 4 avenues for delivering preventive interventions: health insurance, workplace policies, health promotion programs, and communications. For each of the avenues, the evidence base describes a number of preventive interventions that are applicable to the workplace. On the basis of the evidence and of our work in Washington State, we present a public health approach to preventing chronic diseases via the workplace. In addition to relying on the evidence, this approach makes a compelling business case for preventive interventions to employers.

The resilience of the health care safety net, 1996-2001.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how the capacity and viability of local health care safety nets changed over the last six years and to draw lessons from these changes. DATA SOURCE: The first three rounds (May 1996 to March 2001) of Community Tracking Study site visits to 12 communities. STUDY DESIGN: Researchers visited the study communities every two years to interview leaders of local health care systems about changes in the organization, delivery, and financing of health care and the impact of these changes on people. For this analysis, we collected data on safety net capacity and viability through interviews with public and not-for-profit hospitals, community health centers, health departments, government officials, consumer advocates, academics, and others. We asked about the effects of market and policy changes on the safety net and how the safety net responded, as well as the impact of these changes on care for the low-income uninsured. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The safety net in three-quarters of the communities was stable or improved by the end of the study period, leading to improved access to primary and preventive care for the low-income uninsured. Policy responses to pressures such as the Balanced Budget Act and Medicaid managed care, along with effective safety net strategies and supportive conditions, helped reinforce the safety net. However, the safety net in three sites deteriorated and access to specialty services remained inadequate across the 12 sites. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pessimistic predictions and some notable exceptions, the health care safety net grew stronger over the past six years. Given considerable community variation, however, this analysis indicates that policymakers can apply a number of lessons from strong and improving safety nets to strengthen those that are weaker, particularly as the current economy poses new challenges.