Cited by 342Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

A review and analysis of the clinical- and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite, 1998–2000 update

Pelletier, Kenneth R.·2001·American Journal of Health Promotion

Abstract

PURPOSE: This article is the fifth in a series of critical reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive, multifactorial health promotion and disease management programs conducted in worksites. As with the previous reviews, the purpose of this article is to review and assess the randomized control trials that have focused on both clinical and cost outcomes of worksite health promotion and disease management programs. For this current review, a new category of quasi-experimental studies has been added because this represents a major new trend in such interventions over the last 2 years. Comprehensive worksite programs are those that provide an ongoing, integrated program of health promotion and disease prevention that integrates specific components into a coherent, ongoing program that is consistent with corporate objectives and includes program evaluations of both clinical and cost outcomes. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search was conducted using a multistage process that included MEDLINE, ERIC, ADI, EDGAR, CARL, Inform, and Lexis-Nexis databases and direct inquiries to worksite researchers. INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The search identified 27 new studies to which the following inclusion criteria were applied: research conducted in the United States; results published in English; methodological quality of nonexperimental (pre- and postmeasures but no comparison group); quasi-experimental to randomized control trials; and both clinical and cost outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies outside of the United States; non-English publications; and clinical or cost outcomes only. Fifteen studies remained for this review. FINDINGS EXTRACTION METHODS: Findings extraction and analysis of the 15 studies was done by extracting the relevant population, intervention design, clinical results, and cost outcomes from the published article. As in previous reviews, findings are summarized in a table format that extracts and describes each study by the following: (1) study author(s); (2) corporate site; (3) purpose of the evaluation; (4) employee population; (5) percentage of program participants; (6) number of employees included in the evaluation; (7) brief description of the intervention; (8) evaluation design; (9) evaluation period; (10) outcomes; (11) research rating; and (12) findings. FINDINGS SYNTHESIS: Based on these 15 studies, a methodological critique was conducted with brief reference to appropriate prior studies. Conclusions regarding study quality and new trends over the time period of 1998 to 2000 are discussed. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: Results from randomized clinical trials and quasi-experimental designs suggest that providing individualized risk reduction for high risk employees within the context of comprehensive programming is the critical element of worksite interventions. Despite the many limitations of the current methodologies of the 15 new studies, the vast majority of the research to date indicates positive clinical and cost outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4278/0890-1171-16.2.107

Cites

91 of 91 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pelletier, K. R.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Corresponding author
Pelletier, Kenneth R.
Venue
American Journal of Health Promotion
Published
2001-11
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
107-116
ISSN
  • 0890-1171 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-6602
OpenAlex
W2003668646
Cited by
341
References
91
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 23
FWCI
36.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Health Promotion (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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
workplace health promotion, disease management programs, occupational health, cost-effectiveness, clinical effectiveness, quasi-experimental design, randomized controlled trials, methodological quality, health promotion program evaluation, disease prevention, corporate wellness programs, health care costs, methodological critique
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Promotion, Health Services Research, Humans, Occupational Health Services, United States, Workplace, Disease Management

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