Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workplace. Show all posts

Monday, June 23, 2014

Data Show More Support Warranted for Worksite Wellness Programs

Photo: Flickr/abraj
This week I had the privilege of addressing the American Cancer Society CEOs Against Cancer at their annual meeting that this year was held at Washington University in St. Louis. As a member of the panel addressing worksite wellness, I was able to briefly summarize the strong evidence that worksite wellness programs can generate substantial savings. For example, in a critical meta-analysis of the literature on costs and savings associated with workplace disease prevention and wellness programs, Baicker, Cutler and Song (2009), show that medical costs fall by about $3.27 for every dollar spent on wellness programs. In addition, absenteeism costs fall by about $2.73 for every dollar spent.

Others have summarized the evidence on worksite physical activity and nutrition programs. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 programs shows that physical activity and nutrition programs are effective in reducing body weight when compared to usual care (van Dongen et al., 2012).

Even more impressive are the benefits of smoking cessation. Halpern and colleagues (2007) show savings in terms of reduced healthcare costs. The savings per smoker range from $350-$582 at 10 years, with internal rate of return ranging from 39% to 60% at 10 years. In addition, as noted in the 50th anniversary Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health (2014) after stopping smoking, former smokers experience an increase in their quality of life. Never smokers have the lowest health care costs in the age range of 45 to 64. Smokers have a loss of productivity in the workplace through absenteeism and also incur more hospitalization and medical charges as a result of outpatient visits. It is the sum of these benefits of quitting smoking, over several years, that drives the benefits of worksite wellness.

A rigorous evaluation by investigators at RAND evaluating a worksite wellness program that included prevention services as well as navigation and support for those with chronic conditions also shows substantial savings (Liu et al 2013). Disease management interventions reduce costs per employee per month significantly. The prevention interventions also substantially reduced costs. While such a program has expenses in the first year, savings are visible in 3 to 5 years after implementing a worksite wellness program.

In sum, worksite wellness programs save employers in terms of health care costs and increase productivity of the workforce. It is hard to see why we don’t have even more support for these programs across all workplaces.

References
Baicker K, Cutler D, Song Z. Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings. Health Aff. 2010;29:304-311.

DeVol R, Bedroussian A. An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Institute. 2007. 

Halpern, MT, Dirani, R, and Schmier, JK. Impacts of a Smoking Cessation Benefit Among Employed Populations. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49:11–21. 

Liu, H, et al. Effect of an Employer-Sponsored Health and Wellness Program on Medical Cost and Utilization. Population Health Management. 2013;16:1–6.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Printed with corrections, January 2014. 

van Dongen, JM, et al. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of worksite physical activity and/or nutrition programs. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2012. 38:393-408.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Sitting, Cancer Risk, and Developing Strategies to do Something About It

Photo: Flickr/DanielGo
This post seems a bit cruel, coming out as it does during the current TV season's finale week and the beginning of the World Cup.  But, science doesn't rest - not even for Game of Thrones or the Brazilian national soccer team. So, neither do we.

Just released on the Journal of the National Cancer Institute's website is a new analysis by two German researchers that combined the results from numerous studies on sedentary behavior and found that the simple act of sitting can significantly increase the risk of multiple cancers, including colon cancer, endometrial cancer, and lung cancer.  Even in those who exercised regularly, being sedentary increased cancer risk.

The large analysis looked at data from 43 observational studies that included nearly 70,000 cancer cases.  The researchers found that, compared to those who sat the least, those who sat the most had a 24 percent higher risk of colon cancer, a 32 percent higher risk of endometrial cancer, and a 21 percent higher risk of lung cancer.  When looking only at TV viewing, the risks jumped considerably, with the risk of colon cancer increased by 54 percent and endometrial cancer by 66 percent.

Researchers hypothesized that time spent watching television was linked to greater risk than say, time spent sitting at work, because people who are watching TV are more likely to spend that time eating unhealthy foods, drinking alcohol, and smoking.

Although regular physical activity is a great boon to health, this new report also helped confirm that exercise is not enough on its own to protect against the health risks of an overall sedentary lifestyle.  Even after taking activity level into account, high levels of sedentary behaviors still increased the risk of colon cancer by 20 percent and endometrial cancer by 32 percent (see figure).

In an accompanying editorial, Washington University School of Medicine researchers, Lin Yang and CNiC's Graham Colditz, discuss how the continuing modernization of society sets the stage for increasingly sedentary lifestyles and the negative health effects that go with it.  To successfully combat sedentary lifestyles it will take approaches similar to those that helped rein in tobacco use and that have just started to show some success against obesity. The key is targeting multiple layers of society, and with appropriate resources.  These include worksite policies that can help reduce sitting time (such as, standing desks, regular standing/walking breaks, and active (vs. passive) commuting benefits) and programs focussed on youth that promote physical activities as an attractive choice to sedentary screen time.  

With recent high profile studies, sitting is quickly being recognized as the health risk that it is.  For many years, it was seen simply as the direct opposite of exercise and physical activity.  And while there are clearly close links between the two, it's now clear that it is an important cancer risk factor even in those who exercise regularly.

Because this relationship has taken a while to be broadly recognized, we're behind in developing strategies to effectively address the issue.  As Yang and Colditz state:  "strategies remain poorly defined to meet this goal [of reductions in sedentary behavior]."

Now that we have the results of this latest analysis to further show the impact that sedentary lifestyles are having on our health, it's time to develop an approach to address the issue with the energy and resources that are equal to its impact.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Becoming a Stand-Up: Fighting Disease with Desks

It was hard to miss the headlines this summer telling us that a new federal study confirmed what many disgruntled office workers had long suspected - that their desk jobs may just be killing them.  While the headlines were a bit overblown, they did capture the essence of what more and more evidence is showing, being consistently sedentary for long stretches of time increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and early death.

In this latest study, women who sat for six hours or more each day were nearly 40 percent more likely to die during the 14 year study period than those who sat less than three hours per day.  Men who sat for six hours or more were 20 percent more likely to die.  

Perhaps most surprising to many, hitting the gym, walking, or doing other physical activities didn't counteract the effects of sitting, though not exercising certainly made the effects of sitting even worse, more than doubling the risk of dying.

With these results, many office workers and their bosses have taken note, and there seems to be a move in corporate America - as well as in home offices - to try to improve health by cutting back on sit-time, largely through innovations in desks.  Forbes.com alone ran at least five stories over the past spring and summer on stand-up desks, including one reviewing some of the current crop that may be seen in both corner offices and cubicles alike.  In October, Wired magazine posted specs on what to look for in stand up desks, including home-spun inexpensive alternatives. And this past Sunday, the New York Times ran an article on the growing acceptance of stand-up desks in the workplace - even the space-gobbling and pricey treadmill desks.

It's a common refrain here on CNiC that our surroundings can have a profound impact on the health choices we all make - or don't make.  It's hard to exercise if there are no sidewalks or parks in your neighborhood.  It's hard to eat healthy food during the day if there's nothing but fast food choices around your school or workplace.

With around 80 percent of US jobs now requiring little if any physical activity, beginning to change the office environment and culture around sitting could have an important impact on employee wellness as well as nationwide health.  Of course, we still need more sidewalks, parks, and produce stands but more stand up desks is still a good move in the right direction. 

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Confronting the challenges of 2012 with salads and stairs

In Sunday's New York Times, the editors ask prominent economists to weigh in on how to face the economic challenges ahead of us in 2012.  Richard Thaler, of the University of Chicago, who wrote (with Cass Sunstein) Nudge, the best selling book on behavioral economics argues that employers have the opportunity to tackle one of our biggest challenges, health care spending.  Employers are choice architects - they can make changes in how choices are offered that make one choice easier, or the default.  Thaler argues that by making a few changes, employers can improve workers' health, leading to greater productivity, fewer sick days, and lower insurance costs.


First, Thaler argues, make eating at work easier, by prominently featuring a variety of healthy options and putting in an attractive salad bar before the burger line.  How might this look in real life? Let me use the cafeteria at my office as an example.  

There are at least four cafeterias on our hospital/medical school campus and they aren't all run by the same people, so the situation likely looks different on the other side of campus, but this is what it looks like in the cafeteria that sits right under my office and nearest the cancer center.  The first thing you see when you walk in, is the grill/fry-o-later area.  Serving up burgers, hot dogs, fries and onion rings, it invariably has a long line, which makes it easy to miss that there is a sandwich counter immediately to your left.  The sandwich counter is hidden behind a high wall and camouflaged further by shelves of chips and candy, so unlike in many sandwich shops, you can't see the choices.  You can see two featured sandwiches.  Sometimes one is healthy, but not always.  Just past the sandwiches (and around the candy display) is the hot meal counter, which features one Weight Watchers entree each day.  This may reflect my own food preferences, but I rarely find this entree to look very appetizing or particularly healthy (I realize “healthy” can have lots of different meanings, but something high in cheese and refined grains rarely meets my metric).  To the far right of the sandwich bar is the pizza station, which usually features 3-5 types of pizza (most laden with meat) and another cheesy doughy option, like calzone, daily. Across from the sandwich bar is the featured entree special of the day.  The days I've visited in recent memory this has been: nachos loaded with ground beef and processed cheese of the orange variety ( which I confess to finding appealing on Super Bowl Sunday, but I'm not kidding myself about it fitting in the healthy realm and I accept the health consequences of my choice), and beef stir fry laden with sauce of the kind women's magazines regularly tell readers to avoid choosing when dining out, roast beef covered with gravy and accompanied by mashed potatoes. Just past the featured entree is the salad bar. I think most cafeterias these days have a salad bar, but having a salad bar and having an “attractive” salad bar are not the same thing. To their credit, since I started at my office nearly 5 years ago, the cafeteria has added mixed greens and baby spinach as daily options, offering something other than the white-ish iceberg lettuce of the early days. And there are proteins in the salad bar choices - typically hardboiled eggs, one type of canned bean and diced turkey or tuna. But the salad bar is a long way from what I’ve seen else where and a long way from allowing you to create the kind of salad you might get down the street at one of the neighborhood sandwich shops. Dried fruit? Nope. Other kinds of fruit? It is on the other side and is charged at a different rate. Nuts? No, but there are sunflower seeds. Cheese? Yes, there is usually grated orange cheese. I give the cafeteria credit, I can definitely create a greek salad for myself that rivals that fancy sandwich shop on the corner (with the possible exception of the tomatoes that always look a bit iffy) at a fraction of the cost. But it doesn’t look “attractive” and I’ve got to do all the work, which perhaps explains why there is never a line at the salad bar and I am 10 times more likely to see the people in front of and behind me at the checkout with fried chicken than a salad. This, I think, gets to the fundamental point - if you want people to make the healthy choice you have to make it easy and attractive.

What about Thaler’s other suggestions? His second is making exercise easier. The health benefits of exercise, as we have said many times on CNiC, don’t require marathon duration or rigor. Walking is enough. And many employers subsidize gym memberships or arrange discounts, including mine. But you shouldn’t have to leave work to get a little walk in - making stairwells attractive is one way and the suggestion Thaler focuses on. In our conglomerate of old and new buildings, my workplace has lots of unattractive stairwells that are often hard to find. At a previous job, I had the privilege of sitting on a committee that was thinking about how to design a new hospital building and one of the most compelling ideas I heard was to make the stairwells front and center - highly visible and the easiest choice (instead of pushed off into the corner and behind a heavy metal door). One of our newest buildings on campus, which also serves as the home to our outpatient cancer care, has a lovely open stairwell at one end of the building, easily visible from the entrance. I enjoy seeing staff using the stairs and leaving the elevators to our patients, many of whom aren’t well enough to climb the stairs to the upper floors of the building. As we embark on a series of renovations and construction of new facilities as part of the 10 year plan, I look forward to seeing how our leadership makes stair use an easy option. In addition, our campus has launched a series of paths around the area (affectionately called “Tread the Med”) to allow staff and visitors to take walking breaks or have walking meetings (as Thaler plans to do in 2012). We have often used these exact “paths” around campus for our walking interventions during inclement weather and they are a great resource. I applaud the leaders who thought to leverage the bridges and hallways that link our conglomerate of old buildings as a means to promoting activity! Combined with easily located, accessible and attractive stairways, our step counts on campus should continue to rise.

Since most Americans spend more waking hours at work than at home, the role of our employers and workplaces at making healthy choices easy (or at least easier) can’t be underestimated. As part of our new TREC @ WUSTL center, our colleagues are examining just this - workplace policies that impact obesity, diet and physical activity.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Video - "Workplace Wellness: Good for Business, Great for You"

On his recent trip to Syndney, CNiC's Graham Colditz, MD, Dr PH, spent some time at the Cancer Council discussing the benefits of workplace wellness and some strategies that can make such programs successful (video).

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Worksite wellness and occupational health assessment saves lives

Comprehensive worksite health promotion addressing occupational health issues, smoking cessation, diet and activity has shown a reduction in cancer risk in blue-collar workers (Sorensen et al. Cancer Causes and Control. 2002). If these results were applied in all similar settings then we would see a substantial reduction in lung cancer in the coming years. See: http://bit.ly/9CVqOW

Workplace health promotion

Media coverage of the obesity epidemic in Australia and the resulting cancer burden nicely emphasizes the role of workplace changes that can help promote wellness - http://bit.ly/ci3NoV.

Growing evidence shows such workplace wellness programs save money and reduce costs for the health system. This is a win-win situation. David Cutler and colleagues write in Health Affairs (Jan 2010): "Amid soaring health spending, there is growing interest in workplace disease prevention and wellness programs to improve health and lower costs. In a critical meta-analysis of the literature on costs and savings associated with such programs, we found that medical costs fall by about $3.27 for every dollar spent on wellness programs and that absenteeism costs fall by about $2.73 for every dollar spent. Although further exploration of the mechanisms at work and broader applicability of the findings is needed, this return on investment suggests that the wider adoption of such programs could prove beneficial for budgets and productivity as well as health outcomes." These data clearly show it is time to act across all types of workplace.

Since we live in communities, we should also remember that school-based programs that help our children grow up healthier are an important adjunct to workplace programs.