Lifestyle Medicine and Worker Productivity

Lifestyle Medicine for the Health Care Worker, Workplace, and Community Well-Being: A Butterfly Effect

Description Burnout is a prevalent and expensive problem in the US, and the National Plan For Health Workforce Well-Being included a goal to institutionalize well-being as a long-term value. Lifestyle Medicine (LM), an evidence-based practice using behavioral interventions to treat, prevent, and reverse certain chronic conditions, can achieve this goal. Implementing small changes in the workplace that support lifestyle medicine has a butterfly effect on both workplace and community well-being. Furthermore, the health of health care workers (HCWs) and patients improves, and health care costs decrease. This can be done with LM wellness programs or LM training for HCWs. LM wellness programs help the individual HCWs' and patients' well-being through the implementation of the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine (nutrition, diet, stress reduction, social connection, avoiding/reducing toxins, restorative sleep) on an institutional level. LM initiatives, like LM training, help HCWs and their patients embark on this journey of optimal well-being, disease prevention, treatment, or reversal. Aligning policies to support evidence-based lifestyle changes that improve mood and stress reduction would support restorative rest, leaving HCWs less drained and allowing for more energy to be spent devoted to other lifestyle pillars. The Lifestyle Medicine Residency Curriculum is an example of an LM training program that leads to successful lifestyle change in residents' lives, improving their ability to coach patients. Finally, health care delivery that supports lifestyle medicine, such as shared medical appointments, is in alignment with the trend towards a value-based system for the improvement of public health.

What are the economic dimensions of occupational health and how should they be measured? A qualitative study

Background

Decision makers want to know if there is a financial benefit in investing scarce resources in occupational health management (OHM). Economic evaluations (EEs) of OHM-strategies try to answer this question. However, EEs of OHM-strategies which are strongly marked by quantitative methods may be limited by contextual, qualitative residuals. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) explore important economic dimensions of OHM and (2) to discuss the methods used in current EEs for measuring these dimensions.

Methods

In this explorative qualitative study, OHM-specialists were recruited via the Swiss organisation for health promotion. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were performed from November 2020 until May 2021. Videotapes were transcribed verbatim and organised by using an open coding strategy. Codes were clustered and synthesised as themes (i.e. the dimensions of EEs of OHM) through a mix of inductive and deductive content analysis. Member check with eight participants was accomplished to validate the results.

Results

The interviews had an average duration of 70.5 min and yielded 609 individual codes. These codes were merged into 28 subcategories which were finally categorised into five main themes: Understanding of OHM, costs, benefits, environmental aspects, and evaluation of OHM. Participants stated that the greater part of costs and benefits cannot be quantified or monetised and thus, considered in quantitative EEs. For example, they see a culture of health as key component for a successful OHM-strategy. However, the costs to establish such a culture as well as its benefits are hard to quantify. Participants were highly critical of the use of absenteeism as a linear measure of productivity. Furthermore, they explained that single, rare events, such as a change in leadership, can have significant impact on employee health. However, such external influence factors are difficult to control.

Conclusions

Participants perceived costs and benefits of OHM significantly different than how they are represented in current EEs. According to the OHM-specialists, most benefits cannot be quantified and thus, monetised. These intangible benefits as well as critical influencing factors during the process should be assessed qualitatively and considered in EEs when using them as a legitimation basis vis-à-vis decision makers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13659-y.