Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
-
The study's objective was to examine the impact of an employee well-being program on general health, mental health, physical functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, role limitations due to physical problems, and social functioning.
-
The study conducted a randomized controlled trial. The study used self-reported measures collected through a standardized health questionnaire. The authors used a statistical model to compare the outcomes of treatment and control group members.
-
The study found that those assigned to the treatment group were more likely to have reported a higher score for their general health mental health, role limitations due to physical problems, and social functioning compared with the control group. These findings were statistically significant. The study did not find any statistically significant impacts of the employee well-being program on physical functioning or role limitations due to emotional problems.
-
This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the employee well-being program and not to other factors.
Intervention Examined
Johnson and Johnson Employee Well-Being Program
Features of the Intervention
The study examines a two-and-half day employee health and well-being training program developed by the Johnson & Johnson Human Performance Institute. The program uses coaches to teach participants skills and techniques to optimize and manage energy, reduce stress, create goals to maximize their purpose, how to handle feedback, and improve their overall functioning at work and in their daily lives. Participants also had access to educational resources and an online support course for the duration of the study.
The program serves employed adults aged 21 years or older.
Features of the Study
The study conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial with high-individual attrition among 12 worksites that did not have a current on-site well-being program. Worksites were randomly assigned to treatment and comparison groups in a 2:1 ratio within for profit and nonprofit employers. Approximately the first 20 interested employees at each worksite were enrolled into the study.
The sample included 12 worksites in the Greater Boston Area. The treatment group consisted of 8 worksites and 163 employees of 4 universities, 3 for-profit-companies, and 1 nonprofit. The comparison group consisted of 4 worksites and 77 employees of 1 university, 2 for-profit companies, and 1 nonprofit. The sample was primarily female (58 percent), White (78 percent), and well-educated (84 percent held a college degree), with an average age of 46 years old. Most participants did not have health problems that impacted physical ability.
The treatment group received the intervention. The comparison group was waitlisted for the intervention and were eligible to receive the intervention 6 months after the treatment group.
The authors used a statistical model to compare the outcomes of treatment and control group members. The study used self-reported measures collected through a standardized health questionnaire. All data was collected as part of the study at baseline prior to randomization, and 6 months after a worksite received the intervention. For the health survey outcomes, the study used cut points that determined the percentage of participants who scored in the highest level of each outcome.
Study Sites
The study was conducted with 12 worksites in the Greater Boston Area.
Findings
Health and safety
-
The study found that those assigned to the treatment group were more likely to have reported a higher score for their general health (0.18 percentage points), mental health (0.2 percentage points), role limitations due to physical problems (0.1 percentage points), and social functioning (0.13 percentage points) compared with the control group. These findings were statistically significant.
-
The study did not find any statistically significant impacts of the employee well-being program on physical functioning or role limitations due to emotional problems.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to health and safety. Performing multiple statistical tests on related outcomes makes it more likely that some impacts will be found statistically significant purely by chance and not because they reflect program effectiveness. The authors did not perform statistical adjustments to account for the multiple tests, so the number of statistically significant findings is likely to be overstated.
Causal Evidence Rating
This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the employee well-being program and not to other factors.