Selling Wellness: Using Audience Analysis to Identify the Factors That Influence Participation In Employer-Initiated Wellness Programs

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  Participatory communication has been considered key to health promotion efforts in the workplace.   “Get Up and Move,”  whose acronym corresponds with the name of the territory of Guam, was a wellness program initiated in 2001.  Despite attractive incentives, participation in the program was not sustainable.    Implemented as a “top-down” initiative, the program did not take into account the nature of its target audience. Based on the hypothesis that an understanding of the target audience is key to the development of an effective health promotion program, the present study was conducted to gain an understanding of the audience’s  attitudes towards various aspects of  wellness programs – topics of interest, health concerns, health  beliefs, as well as current health habits – to provide baseline information for crafting a wellness program.

Methods:  A survey instrument was developed and administered from August-September, 2010.  Most participants completed the survey online, while about 10% filled out paper surveys because of computer access problems.  PASW Statistics 18 routines were used for descriptive statistics, as well as correlation and regression analysis.

Results:  Fifty-six percent of the participants (N=1,198) were female, 44% were male.  Ages ranged from 21 to 60+, with the mode in the 41-50 age range.  48.5% of the respondents had sedentary work days at desks or computers.  The participants indicated interest in topics including weight management, stress, and cholesterol control.   They revealed they were more likely to participate in one-shot activities like health screening, cooking demonstrations or 5K runs (46 to 59%) than in information-seeking activities like brownbag lectures, workshops or reading online or print materials on their own (26 to 38%).  However,  53%  indicated that they would join group exercise programs at work, if they were mandatory.   Lack of time and work load were the top reasons for nonparticipation.  Only 22% of the participants (N=262) indicated that they currently exercise on a regular basis.  Among those who do, 49% do it with a partner, 20% with a group, and 31% on their own.  Responses to the 18-item measure of health beliefs indicated that while the participants know what “wellness” means and  “what it takes to lead a healthy lifestyle,” they think it is “a lot of trouble.”  Ultimately, they believe that “a healthy lifestyle is entirely up to the individual.” Moreover, 13 of these items are significantly correlated (p=.05) with current exercise activity.  However, availability is the key issue – they would eat healthier snacks if they were available and exercise when space is provided.  While they are not satisfied with their current health status, they don’t exercise, sleep enough, or eat healthier food.

Conclusions:  This study highlights the need to understand the complexity of the target audience as the key to the development and marketing of effective wellness programs.  While sheer availability could lead to positive responses, “one-size fits all programs” may not work for everyone, and various options may be needed to encourage participation and commitment.

Implications for research and/or practice:  Baseline information and audience analysis are critical to developing effective wellness programs.  Participatory programs should be encouraged.