Copyright4Teachers

This is a talk given to School of Education 504 Teaching with Technology by Greg Grossmeier, Copyright Specialist at the University of Michigan Library's Copyright Office.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78002/4/gg-20100910-ED504.mp3http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78002/3/gg-20100910-ED504.ppthttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78002/2/gg-20100910-ED504.odphttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78002/1/gg-20100910-ED504.pdf3

Using Creative Commons Licensed Material

Learn how to properly use and attribute works that are made available under a Creative Commons license.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83503/1/Using Creative Commons Licensed Material.pdf1

How to Select and Apply a Creative Commons License

Learn how to select and apply a Creative Commons license for works that you create.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/83502/1/How to Select and Apply a Creative Commons License.pdf1

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

Influence of Incentive Design and Organizational Characteristics on Wellness Participation and Health Outcomes

Objective: To explore how changing incentive designs influence wellness participation and health outcomes. Methods: Aggregated retrospective data were evaluated using cluster analysis to group 174 companies into incentive design types. Numerous statistical models assessed between-group differences in wellness participation, earning incentives, and over-time differences in health outcomes. Results: Four incentive design groups based on requirements for earning incentives were identified. The groups varied in support for and participation in wellness initiatives within each company. All four design types were associated with improved low density lipoprotein (LDL)(P \u3c 0.01), three with improved blood pressure (P \u3c 0.001), and two with improved fasting glucose (P \u3c 0.03). No incentive plan types were associated with improved body mass index (BMI), but designs predominantly focused on health outcomes (eg, Outcomes-Focused) exhibited a significant increase over time in BMI risk. Conclusion: Incentive design and organizational characteristics impact population-level participation and health outcomes

Development and Validity of a Workplace Health Promotion Best Practices Assessment

Objective: To explore the factor structure of the HERO Health and Well-being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer (HERO Scorecard) to develop a reduced version and examine the reliability and validity of that version. Methods: A reduced version of the HERO Scorecard was developed through formal statistical analyses on data collected from 845 organizations that completed the original HERO Scorecard. Results: The final factors in the reduced Scorecard represented content pertaining to organizational and leadership support, program comprehensiveness, program integration, and incentives. All four implemented practices were found to have a strong, statistically significant effect on perceived effectiveness. Organizational and leadership support had the strongest effect (β = 0.56), followed by incentives (β = 0.23). Conclusion: The condensed version of the HERO Scorecard has the potential to be a promising tool for future research on the extent to which employers are adopting best practices in their health and well-being (HWB) initiatives

Workplace Well-Being Factors That Predict Employee Participation, Health and Medical Cost Impact, and Perceived Support

Purpose: This study tested relationships between health and well-being best practices and 3 types of outcomes. Design: A cross-sectional design used data from the HERO Scorecard Benchmark Database. Setting: Data were voluntarily provided by employers who submitted web-based survey responses. Sample: Analyses were limited to 812 organizations that completed the HERO Scorecard between January 12, 2015 and October 2, 2017. Measures: Independent variables included organizational and leadership support, program comprehensiveness, program integration, and incentives. Dependent variables included participation rates, health and medical cost impact, and perceptions of organizational support. Analysis: Three structural equation models were developed to investigate the relationships among study variables. Results: Model sample size varied based on organizationally reported outcomes. All models fit the data well (comparative fit index \u3e 0.96). Organizational and leadership support was the strongest predictor (P \u3c .05) of participation (n ¼ 276 organizations), impact (n ¼ 160 organizations), and perceived organizational support (n ¼ 143 organizations). Incentives predicted participation in health assessment and biometric screening (P \u3c .05). Program comprehensiveness and program integration were not significant predictors (P \u3e .05) in any of the models. Conclusion: Organizational and leadership support practices are essential to produce participation, health and medical cost impact, and perceptions of organizational support. While incentives influence participation, they are likely insufficient to yield downstream outcomes. The overall study design limits the ability to make causal inferences from the data

Development of the Workplace Health Savings Calculator:A practical tool to measure economic impact from reduced absenteeism and staff turnover in workplace health promotion Public Health

Background: Workplace health promotion is focussed on improving the health and wellbeing of workers. Although quantifiable effectiveness and economic evidence is variable, workplace health promotion is recognised by both government and business stakeholders as potentially beneficial for worker health and economic advantage. Despite the current debate on whether conclusive positive outcomes exist, governments are investing, and business engagement is necessary for value to be realised. Practical tools are needed to assist decision makers in developing the business case for workplace health promotion programs. Our primary objective was to develop an evidence-based, simple and easy-to-use resource (calculator) for Australian employers interested in workplace health investment figures. Results: Three phases were undertaken to develop the calculator. First, evidence from a literature review located appropriate effectiveness measures. Second, a review of employer-facilitated programs aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of employees was utilised to identify change estimates surrounding these measures, and third, currently available online evaluation tools and models were investigated. We present a simple web-based calculator for use by employers who wish to estimate potential annual savings associated with implementing a successful workplace health promotion program. The calculator uses effectiveness measures (absenteeism and staff turnover rates) and change estimates sourced from 55 case studies to generate the annual savings an employer may potentially gain. Australian wage statistics were used to calculate replacement costs due to staff turnover. The calculator was named the Workplace Health Savings Calculator and adapted and reproduced on the Healthy Workers web portal by the Australian Commonwealth Government Department of Health and Ageing. Conclusion: The Workplace Health Savings Calculator is a simple online business tool that aims to engage employers and to assist participation, development and implementation of workplace health promotion programs