CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 404Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesPhysical Activity and Health

Do workplace health promotion (wellness) programs work?

Goetzel, Ron Z., Henke, Rachel Mosher, Tabrizi, Maryam, Pelletier, Kenneth R., Loeppke, Ron, Ballard, David W., Grossmeier, Jessica, Anderson, David R. +14 more·2014·Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
DOI 10.1097/jom.0000000000000276
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To respond to the question, "Do workplace health promotion programs work?" METHODS: A compilation of the evidence on workplace programs' effectiveness coupled with recommendations for critical review of outcome studies. Also, reviewed are recent studies questioning the value of workplace programs. RESULTS: Evidence accumulated over the past three decades shows that well-designed and well-executed programs that are founded on evidence-based principles can achieve positive health and financial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Employers seeking a program that "works" are urged to consider their goals and whether they have an organizational culture that can facilitate success. Employers who choose to adopt a health promotion program should use best and promising practices to maximize the likelihood of achieving positive results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/jom.0000000000000276

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Only evidence-based WHP programmes can meet target achievements such as improved health or financial advantages, which is often not the case.

    “only evidence-based programmes can meet target achievements, e.g., improved health or financial advantages, which is often not the case [5].”

    From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

  • Not much general research on WHP apps has been conducted; most extant studies have tested individual mHealth apps' effectiveness and derived advantages as a means of WHP, with little guidance for employers on factors to consider when implementing mHealth programmes.

    “Not much general research on WHP apps has been conducted, as most extant studies have tested individual mHealth apps’ effectiveness and derived advantages as a means of WHP, with little guidance given to employers in terms of factors they should consider when considering implementation of mHealth programmes (5,20).”

    From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Goetzel, R. Z., Henke, R. M., Tabrizi, M., Pelletier, K. R., Loeppke, R., Ballard, D. W., Grossmeier, J., Anderson, D. R., Yach, D., Kelly, R. K., McCalister, T., Serxner, S., Selecky, C., Shallenberger, L. G., Fries, J. F., Baase, C., Isaac, F., Crighton, K. A., Wald, P., Exum, E., Shurney, D., & Metz, R. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Goetzel, Ron Z.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2014-09
Volume
56
Issue
9
Pages
927-934
ISSN
1076-2752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/jom.0000000000000276
OpenAlex
W2008590533
Cited by
404
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 1
FWCI
63.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
workplace health promotion, wellness programs, program effectiveness, evidence-based health promotion, organizational culture, employer health programs, financial outcomes, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Goals, Health Promotion, Humans, Occupational Health Services, Program Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review