Guidance on Development of Employer Value Dashboards

Recent industry surveys indicate that a majority of employers are offering health and well-being (HWB) programs to their employees,1,2 but the reasons for offering them have changed over time. While a desire to improve employee health and contain rising health-care costs remain important, employers increasingly recognize a broader value proposition for investing in workforce HWB. A 2019 survey found employers are more likely to seek outcomes such as improved productivity and employee morale as well as reductions in injury rates and turnover.3 Demonstrating how workplace HWB initiatives are linked to such outcomes is challenging. As consultants, researchers, and practitioners working in the workplace wellness field for decades, we’ve often observed organizations that are benefits and data rich but information poor. Even when organizations invest in data warehouses and have access to sophisticated real-time reporting platforms, they struggle to organize the data into meaningful narratives that convey the value yielded by their investment. In 2018, Health Enhancement Research Organization (HERO) convened a large group of subject matter experts, employers, industry vendor suppliers, consultants, and practitioners to discuss how to approach measurement, evaluation, reporting, and dashboard development within their organization.4 A key point raised by several subject matter panelists was the need to identify who will be using the information that is shared and for what purpose. Additionally, the observation was made that there is a tremendous amount of time and energy invested in the development of client-specific dashboards and that a standardized approach and metrics would be of benefit to all involved. Therefore, the convening launched an effort focused on providing guidance for employers on development of a Value Demonstration Dashboard that informs decision-making regarding ongoing investments in workforce HWB. This article aims to share this guidance, with a focus on steps for development and identification of metrics that will be most meaningful for performance insight and informed decision-making by business leaders. But first, it’s important to clarify what we mean by a Value Demonstration Dashboard

Workplace Health Promotion and Mental Health: Three-Year Findings from Partnering Healthy@Work

This study aimed to investigate the association between mental health and comprehensive workplace health promotion (WHP) delivered to an entire state public service workforce (~28,000 employees) over a three-year period. Government departments in a state public service were supported to design and deliver a comprehensive, multi-component health promotion program, Healthy@Work, which targeted modifiable health risks including unhealthy lifestyles and stress. Repeated cross-sectional surveys compared self-reported psychological distress (Kessler-10; K10) at commencement (N = 3406) and after 3 years (N = 3228). WHP availability and participation over time was assessed, and associations between the K10 and exposure to programs estimated. Analyses were repeated for a cohort subgroup (N = 580). Data were weighted for non-response. Participation in any mental health and lifestyle programs approximately doubled after 3 years. Both male and female employees with poorer mental health participated more often over time. Women's psychological distress decreased over time but this change was only partially attributable to participation in WHP, and only to lifestyle interventions. Average psychological distress did not change over time for men. Unexpectedly, program components directly targeting mental health were not associated with distress for either men or women. Cohort results corroborated findings. Healthy@Work was successful in increasing participation across a range of program types, including for men and women with poorer mental health. A small positive association of participation in lifestyle programs with mental health was observed for women but not men. The lack of association of mental health programs may have reflected program quality, its universality of application or other contextual factors