User login
Employee wellness programs (EWPs) have a good track record, with plenty of affirmative research showing benefits: lowered stress levels, fewer sick days, reduced absenteeism, health care savings. Studies have found that for every dollar spent on an EWP, medical costs fall by $3 to $6. Moreover, studies have found that organizations that invest in EWPs have higher rates of employee satisfaction, morale, and retention.
But does one size of EWP fit all needs? Not according to researchers from Northern Arizona University. They studied factors that go in to successful EWPs and suggest that geography should play a big part in decision making: from whether to have an EWP to what it should offer. Take Houston, Texas, for instance, where influenza lasts longer than in most other places. Geographic and climatologic variables, the researchers say, like those necessitate “tailored wellness responses,” such as spending more money on outreach and educational programs to make sure people are prepared for seasonal outbreaks.
The researchers endorse the idea of “individualism in city preferences”—that is, that cities maximize their wellness offerings by taking advantage of the characteristics of the spaces, cultures, and lifestyles unique to them. The researchers note that cities with high incidence of obesity, such as Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, Kentucky, tend to put more money into weight-loss programs. Cities with more elderly workers, like Phoenix, Arizona, and Jacksonville, Florida, have “robust programs” for managing chronic diseases associated with age. Stress management may be a priority in impoverished areas. Similarly, EWPs need to factor in geography to make sure the programs meet local needs. Some cities have more and longer days with sunshine: How much of the year can people be active outside? Some have farmland nearby: EWPs can encourage eating healthy locally sourced foods. It is significant, the researchers say, that EWPs in “lower obesity” regions have a proportionately higher intake of activities associated with the outdoors.
Geography is only one consideration among many, the researchers emphasize. City leadership and commitment and incentive structures lead to recreational investments and investments in healthy-living infrastructures, which in turn, lead to higher livability rankings and quality-of-life indexes, workforce productivity, and attracting new business. Those lead to more community involvement, cohesion, and reduced reliance on public health care facilities. And ultimately, the researchers say, the components of a successful EWP all lead to a positive impact on health and longevity.
Employee wellness programs (EWPs) have a good track record, with plenty of affirmative research showing benefits: lowered stress levels, fewer sick days, reduced absenteeism, health care savings. Studies have found that for every dollar spent on an EWP, medical costs fall by $3 to $6. Moreover, studies have found that organizations that invest in EWPs have higher rates of employee satisfaction, morale, and retention.
But does one size of EWP fit all needs? Not according to researchers from Northern Arizona University. They studied factors that go in to successful EWPs and suggest that geography should play a big part in decision making: from whether to have an EWP to what it should offer. Take Houston, Texas, for instance, where influenza lasts longer than in most other places. Geographic and climatologic variables, the researchers say, like those necessitate “tailored wellness responses,” such as spending more money on outreach and educational programs to make sure people are prepared for seasonal outbreaks.
The researchers endorse the idea of “individualism in city preferences”—that is, that cities maximize their wellness offerings by taking advantage of the characteristics of the spaces, cultures, and lifestyles unique to them. The researchers note that cities with high incidence of obesity, such as Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, Kentucky, tend to put more money into weight-loss programs. Cities with more elderly workers, like Phoenix, Arizona, and Jacksonville, Florida, have “robust programs” for managing chronic diseases associated with age. Stress management may be a priority in impoverished areas. Similarly, EWPs need to factor in geography to make sure the programs meet local needs. Some cities have more and longer days with sunshine: How much of the year can people be active outside? Some have farmland nearby: EWPs can encourage eating healthy locally sourced foods. It is significant, the researchers say, that EWPs in “lower obesity” regions have a proportionately higher intake of activities associated with the outdoors.
Geography is only one consideration among many, the researchers emphasize. City leadership and commitment and incentive structures lead to recreational investments and investments in healthy-living infrastructures, which in turn, lead to higher livability rankings and quality-of-life indexes, workforce productivity, and attracting new business. Those lead to more community involvement, cohesion, and reduced reliance on public health care facilities. And ultimately, the researchers say, the components of a successful EWP all lead to a positive impact on health and longevity.
Employee wellness programs (EWPs) have a good track record, with plenty of affirmative research showing benefits: lowered stress levels, fewer sick days, reduced absenteeism, health care savings. Studies have found that for every dollar spent on an EWP, medical costs fall by $3 to $6. Moreover, studies have found that organizations that invest in EWPs have higher rates of employee satisfaction, morale, and retention.
But does one size of EWP fit all needs? Not according to researchers from Northern Arizona University. They studied factors that go in to successful EWPs and suggest that geography should play a big part in decision making: from whether to have an EWP to what it should offer. Take Houston, Texas, for instance, where influenza lasts longer than in most other places. Geographic and climatologic variables, the researchers say, like those necessitate “tailored wellness responses,” such as spending more money on outreach and educational programs to make sure people are prepared for seasonal outbreaks.
The researchers endorse the idea of “individualism in city preferences”—that is, that cities maximize their wellness offerings by taking advantage of the characteristics of the spaces, cultures, and lifestyles unique to them. The researchers note that cities with high incidence of obesity, such as Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, Kentucky, tend to put more money into weight-loss programs. Cities with more elderly workers, like Phoenix, Arizona, and Jacksonville, Florida, have “robust programs” for managing chronic diseases associated with age. Stress management may be a priority in impoverished areas. Similarly, EWPs need to factor in geography to make sure the programs meet local needs. Some cities have more and longer days with sunshine: How much of the year can people be active outside? Some have farmland nearby: EWPs can encourage eating healthy locally sourced foods. It is significant, the researchers say, that EWPs in “lower obesity” regions have a proportionately higher intake of activities associated with the outdoors.
Geography is only one consideration among many, the researchers emphasize. City leadership and commitment and incentive structures lead to recreational investments and investments in healthy-living infrastructures, which in turn, lead to higher livability rankings and quality-of-life indexes, workforce productivity, and attracting new business. Those lead to more community involvement, cohesion, and reduced reliance on public health care facilities. And ultimately, the researchers say, the components of a successful EWP all lead to a positive impact on health and longevity.