Lindenwood University Digital Commons@Lindenwood University Dissertations Theses & Dissertations Fall 8-2015 A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Employee Attitudes, Awareness, and Satisfaction with Regard to the University Employee Wellness Program Linda Ann Walters Lindenwood University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/dissertations Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons Recommended Citation Walters, Linda Ann, "A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Employee Attitudes, Awareness, and Satisfaction with Regard to the University Employee Wellness Program" (2015).edu/dissertations/346 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses & Dissertations at Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. For more information, please contact phuffman@lindenwood. A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Employee Attitudes, Awareness, and Satisfaction with Regard to the University Employee Wellness Program by Linda Ann Walters A Dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Employee Attitudes, Awareness, and Satisfaction with Regard to the University Employee Wellness Program by Linda Ann Walters This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education at Lindenwood University by the School of Education Declaration of Originality I do hereby declare and attest to the fact that this is an original study based solely upon my own scholarly work here at Lindenwood University and that I have not submitted it for any other college or university course or degree here or elsewhere.
Full Legal Name: Linda Ann Walters Acknowledgements My sincerest gratitude to my mentor and committee chair, Dr. I could not have completed this project without your continued support and encouragement. Your belief in me over the past five years has led to so many amazing life-changing experiences; I am eternally grateful. Susan Isenberg, thank you for your time, guidance, and graciously sharing your knowledge.
Kate Tessmer, your patience and unwavering support got me through some of the most challenging aspects of this project, thank you for taking the time to always go above and beyond my expectations. Thank you to the research participants for being a part of the study and to the university for allowing this project to occur. To my family and friends, thank you for your endless support and encouragement. To my mother, Patricia Pace, the one person in this world, has always provided me with unconditional love.
You are the role model every parent aspires to be, and I am lucky to have. To my brother Gary Pace, and sisters, Donna and Kerri Pace, and dear friend, Maggie Fogerty. You have all been there to support me in some of my most difficult times. This accomplishment would not have been possible without each one of you taking time out of your lives to be there for my family and me, especially in those early years.
To my children, Austin and Jackson. The decision to pursue this endeavor did not come without consequences. I have missed countless hours with you both as I have worked to purse my aspirations. I hope you understand my goal has always been to provide you both with security and love.
I am looking forward to spending more time with both of you and watching you grow into the amazing young men, I am proud to call my sons. To my husband Dave, I know this project and the past five years have been as equally i challenging for you. Thank you for being my rock and selflessly supporting me throughout this journey. ii Abstract While there was an abundant amount of research supporting the need for and benefits of a workplace health program (WHP), little empirical research existed regarding WHPs in a university setting (Watts, 1992).
Compared to other WHP settings, the university setting is unique in that the employee population consists of both faculty and staff, with various work schedules, job responsibilities, and demographics. Universities also provide a unique setting for WHPs due to their access to various internal resources, such as employees with expert knowledge, campus food services, on-site facilities, and students studying health and wellness disciplines (RAND Corporation, 2013). As reported by the National Institute of Health Care Management (NIHCM, 2011), there was a need for more research to build a stronger evidence base for establishment of WHPs, and to identify program components that work best in different types of workplace environments, such as the university setting. The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of a Liberal Arts University WHP, to assess employees’ feedback regarding their program participation, or lack thereof, and whether a difference existed between full-time faculty and full-time staff attitudes, awareness, and satisfaction with the WHP (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012b; Hanks et al.
The primary investigator (PI) collected both quantitative and qualitative data through the utilization of an anonymous web-based survey and four focus groups. Quantitative data analysis revealed, that differences did exist, some of which were statistically significant, between the university’s full-time faculty and staff attitudes and awareness. Furthermore, the quantitative data revealed minimal differences in regards to faculty and staff satisfaction with the WHP. Qualitative data presented three emerging iii themes: administration/supervisor support, defining the purpose of the WHP, and effective communication and marketing.
Differences in faculty and staff attitudes towards and awareness of the WHP indicated a need for more effective communication and increased leadership support of the WHP. WHP practitioners may benefit from future research that scientifically investigates how to create or increase WHP participation and engagement. Such assessments are vital to the ongoing evaluation of WHPs, and are a crucial component to chronic disease management efforts in the U. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements.
iii Table of Contents. v List of Tables. x List of Figures. xi Chapter One: Introduction.
1 Purpose of the Dissertation. 3 Main Research Question. 4 Definition of Terms. 5 Workplace Health Programs.
5 Chapter Two: The Literature Review. 6 Chronic Diseases-Facts and Statistics. 6 Chronic Disease’s Total Cost and Effect on the US Healthcare System. 14 v Health Behavior Change Techniques and Models.
15 Model of Wellness. 21 Workplace Health Programs. 24 Structure of Workplace Health Programs. 26 Incentives for Participation in Workplace Health Programs.
33 Return on Investment. 35 University Workplace Health Programs. 39 Chapter Three: Methodology. 43 Main Research Question.
44 Web-based Survey. 50 vi Chapter Four: Results. 52 Main Research Question. 52 The CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard.
52 CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard: Total Score. 53 Web-based Survey. 70 vii Awareness question 3. 82 Main Research Question.
86 Chapter Five: Discussion and Reflection. 88 Main Research Question. 88 Discussion of the HSC. 89 Discussion of the Web-based survey.
90 Discussion of the Focus Groups. 96 viii Main Research Question. 100 Implications of the Study. 102 Recommendations to the Program.
102 Recommendations for Future Research. 136 ix List of Tables Table 1. Stages of Change. Chi-Squared Test of Homogeneity: CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard.
Survey Respondents Demographics: Gender. Survey Respondents Demographics: Age. Survey Respondents Demographics: Number of Years Employed at the University. Survey Respondents Demographics: Highest Level of Education.
Chi-Squared Test of Homogeneity: Attitudes. Survey Respondents: Awareness Question 1. Survey Respondents: Awareness Question 2. Survey Respondents: Awareness Question 3.
Chi-Squared Test of Homogeneity: Satisfaction. Survey Respondents: Participation Question 1. Survey Respondents: Participation Question 2. Focus Group Participant UI.82 x List of Figures Figure 1.
Lifestyle management program, .31 xi Chapter One: Introduction In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported life expectancy in the United States (U.) had increased since the 1900s, and the primary causes of death no longer included infectious diseases such as pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, diarrhea, and enteritis (Sahyoun, 2001). Instead, chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and arthritis were the leading causes of death and disability of Americans (Sahyoun, 2001). While genetics may play a role in the acquisition of a chronic disease, most often, modifiable health risk behaviors and a sedentary lifestyle are to blame (CDC, 2012b). poor nutritional habits, (4) abuse of alcohol, and (5) chronic stress.
Given that health risk behaviors can be modifiable, and a large number of U. adults spent most of their wake time at work, the workplace is a desirable setting for interventions related to reducing health risk behaviors (Linnan, 2008). Problem Statement The establishment of the university workplace health program (WHP) analyzed for this study, took place in the spring of 2008. The primary purpose of the program was to create a healthy work environment through health education and interventions related to the five dimensions of wellness: physical, mental, social, spiritual, and environmental (Alameda, 2008, p.
Each year the program grew in visibility and use by employees; however, compared to the number of full-time employees (~500), the number of the UNIVERSITY WELLNESS PROGRAM 2 university’s WHP participants was relatively low (32 full-time faculty and 50 full-time staff), thus creating the need for a program analysis. Purpose of the Dissertation The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of a Liberal Arts University WHP, to assess employees’ feedback regarding their program participation, or lack thereof, and whether a difference existed between full-time faculty and full-time staff attitudes, awareness, and satisfaction with the WHP (CDC, 2012b; Hanks et al. The study also aimed to identify potential program gaps through the utilization of the CDC Worksite Health ScoreCard (HSC). An analysis of this nature may assist program leaders with the development of program goals and the implementation of appropriate intervention strategies to assist employees with meeting their personal wellness needs.
Rationale While there was an abundant amount of research supporting the need for and benefits of a WHP, little empirical research existed regarding WHPs in a university setting (Watts, 1992). Compared to other WHP settings, the university setting is unique in that the employee population consists of both faculty and staff, with various work schedules, job responsibilities, and demographics. Universities also provide a unique setting for WHPs due to their access to various internal resources, such as employees with expert knowledge, campus food services, on-site facilities, and students studying health and wellness disciplines (RAND Corporation, 2013). Identifying the differences between faculty and staff attitudes, awareness, and satisfaction with the university WHP may assist WHP practitioners with the implementation of intervention strategies to meet the needs of all employees, especially UNIVERSITY WELLNESS PROGRAM 3 non-participating, and those identified as ‘high risk’ (National Institute of Health Care Management [NIHCM], 2011; Zoller, 2004).
As reported by the NIHCM in 2011, there was a need for more research to build a stronger evidence base for the implementation of WHPs and to identify program components that work best in different types of workplace environments, such as the university setting. Hypotheses H1: As measured by the CDC’s Worksite Health ScoreCard, the WHP total score will be lower than the average total score for similar size WHPs. H2: As measured by the researcher-designed survey, a difference will exist between full-time faculty and full-time staff attitudes towards the program. H3: As measured by the researcher-designed survey, a difference will exist between full-time faculty and full-time staff awareness of the program.
H4: As measured by the researcher-designed survey, a difference will exist between full-time faculty and full-time staff satisfaction with the program. Research Questions Main Research Question: How do employees’ awareness, attitudes, and satisfaction with their workplace wellness program effect their participation and engagement in the program? Sub Questions: 1) Does awareness effect an employee’s participation and engagement in the workplace wellness program? 2) Do attitudes effect an employee’s participation and engagement in the workplace wellness program? UNIVERSITY WELLNESS PROGRAM 4 3) Does satisfaction effect an employee’s participation and engagement in the workplace wellness program?