The document describes research conducted by Laura Schopp on workplace health promotion programs. It evaluates an adapted self-management program called Act Healthy, which was designed to be a low-cost, scalable intervention for employees. A randomized controlled trial found that Act Healthy led to greater improvements in health behaviors and self-efficacy compared to standard wellness programs. A second study found Act Healthy resulted in better health outcomes than an intensive monitoring alternative and that benefits were sustained at 12 months. The research aims to identify effective and cost-efficient models for supporting employee health behavior change.

1. Laura Schopp, Ph.D., ABPP
University of Missouri Department of Health Psychology

2.  Replicable, scalable, cost-effective way to support
employee health behavior change
 Our strategy has to fit into the work day
 We need a model that is resilient to budget
changes (volunteer peer facilitated)
 Our model needs to be individualized to the needs
of each participant
 Ideally would lead to an organizational “tipping
point” or critical mass to support culture change

3.  Act Healthy cuts leader training time from 4 days to
4 hours
 Act Healthy cuts weekly meeting time from 2 hours
to 50 minutes
 Act Healthy lets participants individualize their
weekly Action Plan
 6 weekly sessions at work, focused on action
planning and iterative progress on health goals
 Confidence level for action plans must be 8 of 10

4.  Can we adapt self-management, a successful
health promotion model, to be feasible for
the workplace?
 Is adapted self-management more effective
than wellness program standard of care?
 Are there other cost-effective approaches
that work as well as adapted self-management?

5. • Randomized, prospective, cohort design
comparing Act Healthy to wellness standard of
care controls
• 91 University of Missouri employees recruited
through Healthy for Life
• Leaders were volunteer Wellness Ambassadors

6.  Do Act Healthy participants show significant
improvement pre-intervention to post-intervention
(within-group)?
 Do Act Healthy participants show more
improvement pre to post-intervention compared
to wait-list controls (between group)?
 Does Act Healthy produce improvements at 3
month follow- up compared to pre-intervention?
(are improvements sustained)?

7.  Act Healthy Group
◦ Attended 6 Act Healthy Group Meetings
◦ 3 Health Surveys
 Standard of Care Wellness Controls
◦ 3 Health Surveys
◦ Access to standard wellness program offerings
◦ Biometric screening availability
◦ These controls rolled into intervention group

8. 3.02
3.19
2.66
2.86
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
Health Behavior* Health Self Efficacy*
Act Healthy
Controls
Means were different after Act Healthy group received 6 week intervention compared to wait-list group

9.  2 groups: Act Healthy vs. Eye on Health
intensive monitoring alternative
 Randomized, prospective, cohort design among
benefit-eligible University employees
 Data Collection at 0, 3 & 12 months
 Outcome Variables: self-efficacy, health
behaviors, health status, absenteeism, health
care utilization

10.  New General Self Efficacy Scale (GSE)
 Adapted Health Lifestyle Profile II
 Personal Health Questionnaire
 Demographics
 Biometrics
◦ Waist Circumference
◦ Fasting Triglycerides
◦ Fasting High Density Lipoproteins (HDL)
◦ Blood Pressure
◦ Fasting Blood Glucose

11. 73%
32%
52%
44%
25%
62%
30%
43%
28%
19%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Waist TG HDL BP FBG
Act Healthy
Eye on Health
Guidelines for target ranges from the National Blood, Lung, and Heart Institute.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/ms/diagnosis.html

12. 3.90 4.02
8.93
6.94
4.11 4.21
6.04
5.78
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
* p < .05

13. 2.91
2.65 2.66
2.88
2.95
2.9
2.85
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
Act Healthy* Eye on Health*
* p < .05

14. 2.61
2.17
2.58
2.86
2.53
2.81
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
*
*
* p < .05

15. 3.02 3.08
2.46
3.28 3.25
2.70
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
*
*
* p < .05

16. 2.56
2.29
2.58
2.79
2.53
2.83
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
*
*
* p < .05

17. 3.06 3.11
2.37
3.26 3.22
2.62
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
*
*
* p < .05

18.  Act Healthy beats standard of care controls
 Both Act Healthy and Eye on Health are effective, but
Act Healthy participants had improved depression and
Eye on Health participants did not
 How can we scale up statewide and maintain fidelity to
the Act Healthy intervention?
 Will we have differential enrollment in Act Healthy vs.
Eye on Health (e.g., gender) if enrollment is open?
 Will improvements be maintained over time?