New study findings from the University of Illinois confirm that an employee wellness program doesn’t improve health or healthcare costs.
Here’s what will happen next:
- Wellness critics will argue that wellness programs must cease at once.
- Wellness profiteers will, once again, falsely claim that the studied program was atypical and that the researchers failed to report on measures such as mental health, energy levels, quality of life, or job satisfaction.
Here’s what should happen next:
- We should be prepared to accept, based on a growing body of evidence, that typical wellness programs don’t deliver on their promise.
- We should collaborate with employees to figure out how we can effectively support their wellbeing.
Research should be leveraged to improve employee wellbeing strategies. Circling the wagons around the status quo or interpreting studies simply as a yay/nay on employee wellbeing are both unproductive.
See the abstract/article:
Check out Margaret Moore’s post, 20 Years to a Vision with Wings, chronicling the path of Wellcoaches Corporation (and wellness coaching) leading up to the organization’s 20-year anniversary.
I’m honored that Margaret, Wellcoaches Founder and CEO, included me amongst the founders of the wellness coaching field, and especially honored to be associated with the other distinguished innovators she mentions:
Our inspiring fellow founders of the field we now call health & wellness coaching included Sean Slovenski, Bob Merberg, Michael Arloski, and Linda Bark.
Congratulations to Margaret, Wellcoaches, and the 12,000 coaches they’ve trained across the globe, who over 20 years have shaped the field that has benefited the wellbeing of so many!
Reporting on backlash against open office spaces, the New York Times described “the proliferation of so-called phone booths, mini meeting rooms and all manner of pods.”
Looking at the photo that accompanies the article should at least evoke questions about ergonomics. Most ergo purists I know are stalwarts for “neutral” positions, with individualized chair adjustments, desk heights, computer monitor distance, etc. Ambient and task lighting are given careful attention in ergonomically-aware workplaces (in many cubicle farms we find workstations tented to accommodate headache suffers).
Modern offices that encourage people to work in a variety of comfortable, casual positions may be best. I like the autonomy and personalization. But it would be good to know the safety science, including whether people who can change positions do change positions (regardless of open or closed office-space design). Or do they spend 8 hours sitting, like the worker in the photo, legs-crossed in oddly lit pods (or slung across comfy chairs, or whatever) and their overheated laptops perched on their laps?
Maybe we’ve determined that office safety and ergonomics aren’t important? Seems ironic after years of fine-tuning office workers into what we thought was the ideal position and investing billions in ergonomic solutions.
I’m glad to see employers accommodate employees’ needs for privacy, focus, and autonomy. But let’s be sure not to exclude their safety from the formula.
A headline in the Washington Post (April 26, 2020), based on the researchers’ conclusions at the time, blared, “In New York’s largest hospital system, 88% of coronavirus patients on ventilators didn’t make it.” (As of April 25, the headline wasn’t corrected. By May 5, it had been changed to read “…many patients on ventilators didn’t make it.”)
The ventilator mortality rate excluded from the denominator patients still in the hospital.
After an immediate outcry from others in the medical community, the research paper was corrected in JAMA online:
“The sentence reporting mortality for patients receiving mechanical ventilation should read, ‘As of April 4, 2020, for patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 1151, 20.2%), 38 (3.3%) were discharged alive, 282 (24.5%) died, and 831 (72.2%) remained in hospital.'”
This is one example — the coronavirus pandemic has provided many — of the importance of proper denominators.Denominators often are not scrutinized closely enough by journalists, by businesses, or by wellness professionals. The gross oversight described here reminds us that, without any background in statistics or data science, denominators used in calculations — when, indeed, they are used — are one reasonable starting point (population size is another) when interpreting data.