A preview of this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from American Journal of Health Promotion
This content is subject to copyright.
Quality of Life; Culture Change/Supportive Environments; Worksite Wellness Programs
Is Usage of a Wellness Center Associated With
Improved Quality of Life?
Matthew M. Clark, PhD; Sarah M. Jenkins, MS; Katherine A. Limoges, MBA; Philip T. Hagen, MD;
Kandace A. Lackore, BS; Ann M. Harris, BA; Brooke L. Werneburg, BA; Beth A. Warren, MBA;
Kerry D. Olsen, MD
Abstract
Purpose. There is limited documentation regarding the potential quality of life (QOL) benefits associated
with use of a worksite wellness center. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between
potential QOL change and use of a worksite wellness center during a 12-month period.
Design. Analysis of an annual QOL wellness center member survey and wellness center use during a
12-month time period.
Setting. A worksite wellness center.
Participants. A total of 1151 employee wellness center members, average age of 39.5 years, 69.7%
female, and 43.5% reported being overweight.
Intervention. Members of the worksite wellness center have access to a range of fitness options, including
exercise classes, water aerobics, an indoor track, strength training, and aerobic conditioning equipment.
Additionally, nutritional classes are offered, and there is a wellness caf ´
e. For resiliency, members can
participate in wellness coaching or a stress-reduction group program.
Method. Participants completed a baseline QOL survey and a second QOL survey 1 year later. An
electronic entry system tracked use of the wellness center.
Results. Participants were divided into four wellness center use quartiles: low users (less than once every 2
weeks), below-average users, above-average users, and high users (two to three visits per week). High users
reported experiencing improvements in their physical QOL (p ,.0001) compared with the low users.
Additionally, low users experienced a greater decline in their mental QOL (p ¼.05) compared with high users.
Conclusion. In a large sample of employees, use of a wellness center during a 12-month period was
associated with benefits for physical QOL. QOL is an important domain of wellness; therefore, in addition to
measuring physiologic changes, examining potential QOL changes may be another important outcome
measure for wellness centers. (Am J Health Promot 2013;27[5]:316–322.)
Key Words: Quality of Life, Wellness Center, Usage, Prevention Research. Manuscript
format: research; Research purpose: program evaluation; Study design: nonexperimental
cohort; Outcome measure: cognitive; Setting: workplace; Health focus: social health;
Strategy: skill building/behavior change; Target population age: adults; Target population
circumstances: geographic location
PURPOSE
Many companies across the country
offer worksite wellness programs to
improve the health and wellness of
their employees. The benefits of health
behavior–specific domains have been
well investigated.
1
For example, in a
meta-analysis, Verweij and colleagues
2
found that worksite weight loss inter-
ventions that combine physical activity
and nutrition reduce body weight by
about 1 kg, and that adding an
environmental component (such as
walking maps, team competitions, or
management commitment) improves
the effectiveness of these programs.
The benefits of physical activity inter-
ventions,
3
stress-reduction programs,
4,5
and behavior change interventions
6
have all also been well documented
and provide outcome-based evidence
for the effectiveness of worksite well-
ness programs on specific health be-
haviors.
Quality of life (QOL) is an impor-
tant component of wellness and con-
sists of both physical and mental
domains. QOL is closely associated
with health status, health behaviors,
and wellness.
7–10
QOL can be defined
as a hierarchical, multidimensional
construct that includes both physical
and mental health.
11
Physical health is
an important domain, but cognitive,
emotional, social, and spiritual func-
tioning are also important domains,
and all contribute to overall QOL.
12–15
The concept of wellness encompasses
QOL because both are more broadly
defined than simply the absence of
disease or illness. To be well, individu-
als should report having a positive
QOL. Unfortunately, QOL is an often
overlooked domain in evaluating the
Matthew M. Clark, PhD, is with the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic,
Rochester, Minnesota. Sarah M. Jenkins, MS, and Kandace A. Lackore, BS, are with the
Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research,
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Katherine A. Limoges, MBA; Brooke L. Werneburg, BA;
and Beth A. Warren, MBA, are with the Dan Abraham Healthy Living Center, Mayo Clinic,
Rochester,Minnesota.PhilipT.Hagen,MD,iswith the Division of Preventive, Occupational,
and Aerospace Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
AnnM.Harris,BA,iswiththeSurveyResearchCenter,DivisionofHealthCarePolicy&
Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Kerry D.
Olsen, MD, is with the Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Send reprint requests to Matthew M. Clark, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo
Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905; clark.matthew@mayo.edu.
This manuscript was submitted February 13, 2012; revisions were requested May 18 and June 25, 2012; the manuscript was
accepted for publication July 20, 2012.
Copyright Ó2013 by American Journal of Health Promotion, Inc.
0890-1171/13/$5.00
þ
0
DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.120213-QUAL-87
//xinet/Production/h/hepr/live_jobs/hepr-27-05/hepr-27-05-06/layouts/hepr-27-05-06.3d 12 April 2013 2:11 pm Allen Press, Inc. Customer MS# 120213-QUAL-87R1 Page 316
316 American Journal of Health Promotion May/June 2013, Vol. 27, No. 5
F
For individual use only.
D Duplication or distribution prohibited by law.