Reducing obesity in work organizations.

Summex Corporation, USA.
American journal of health promotion: AJHP (Impact Factor: 2.37). 01/2004; 19(1):suppl 1-8; discussion 12.
Source: PubMed


The problem of overweight and obesity has been called an emerging "public health epidemic" of major proportions. In this issue of The Art of Health Promotion the focus is on the magnitude of the problem for employers and possible interventions that can help reduce obesity in working populations. Thirty-five possible intervention strategies from the "least invasive" to the "most invasive" are identified. Issues of cost, economic effectiveness and relative invasiveness are addressed in the ordering of the possible interventions. Finally a set of metrics are suggested for measuring the trends and effects of the use of multiple interventions targeted on obesity within a particular work force.

2 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess efficacy of 2 worksite health promotion interventions. Randomly assign 3 fire stations to (a) team-based curriculum, (b) individual counselor meetings, and (c) control. Both interventions were feasible and acceptable, and they resulted in significant reductions in LDL cholesterol. The team approach significantly increased coworker cohesion, personal exercise habits, and coworkers' healthy behaviors. The one-on-one strategy significantly increased dietary self-monitoring, decreased fat intake, and reduced depressed feelings. Although both interventions promoted healthy behaviors, specific outcomes differed and reflected their conceptual underpinnings. The team-based curriculum is innovative and may enlist influences not accessed with individual formats.
    American journal of health behavior 12/2003; 28(1):13-23. DOI:10.5993/AJHB.28.1.2 · 1.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increasing prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes makes the cost of diabetes care a pressing concern. Nurses in all settings play a critical role in helping to reduce the cost of diabetes not only for individual patients but ultimately for the health care system. This article focuses on four main issues related to the economic impact of diabetes for patients and health systems: (1) overall estimates of the direct and indirect costs of diabetes and its associated complications, (2) the impact of cost on diabetes care and health outcomes, (3) the ways in which federal- and state-mandated insurance for persons with diabetes is being used to promote more cost-effective and high-quality diabetes care, and (4) the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate interventions designed to prevent diabetes or diabetes-related complications.
    Nursing Clinics of North America 01/2007; 41(4):499-511, v-vi. DOI:10.1016/j.cnur.2006.07.003 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PHLAME's (Promoting Healthy Lifestyles: Alternative Models' Effects) objective was to assess and compare two means to promote healthy lifestyles. Prospective trial among 599 firefighters randomized by station to 1) team-centered curriculum, 2) one-on-one motivational interviewing (MI), and 3) controls. Assessment included dietary behavior, physical activity, weight, and general well-being at baseline and 12 months. Program effects were determined using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) based approach, and models for relationships were evaluated with path analysis. Both interventions were acceptable and delivered with high fidelity. The team and MI programs increased fruit and vegetable consumption (P < 0.01 and 0.05, respectively) and general well-being (P < 0.01). Significantly less weight gain occurred in both (P < 0.05). A cross-sectional model was consistent with mediation differing between interventions. Both a team-centered and individual-oriented intervention promoted healthy behaviors. The scripted team curriculum is innovative, exportable, and may enlist influences not accessed with individual formats.
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 03/2007; 49(2):204-13. DOI:10.1097/JOM.0b013e3180329a8d · 1.63 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications