Designing a workplace health promotion programme with limited evidence
A large employer (3,000 staff) asks you to design a workplace health programme. Staff surveys show: 28% smoke, 41% are physically inactive, 55% are overweight or obese, and sickness absence averages 9 days per person per year. The employer proposes a 'Biggest Loser' weight-loss competition with cash prizes for the most weight lost, plus mandatory health checks for all staff. The HR director is enthusiastic and has a £150,000 budget. A staff survey also shows high stress levels in the call-centre team (60% report high stress), and low uptake of the existing employee assistance programme (EAP).
1. Critique the proposed 'Biggest Loser' competition and mandatory health checks using health promotion evidence and ethics.
Read the worked answer
'Biggest Loser' competition - problems.
- Effectiveness: rapid weight-loss competitions produce short-term loss but high regain; they do not build sustainable behaviour.
- Harm: they can encourage unhealthy practices (dehydration, crash dieting), stigmatise, and reward the already-lean.
- Equity: they attract the already-motivated and exclude those most in need; they may widen inequalities.
- Ethics: public weigh-ins and ranking are demeaning and breach dignity.
Mandatory health checks - problems.
- Autonomy: mandatory participation undermines informed consent; coercion is ethically unacceptable in health promotion.
- Effectiveness: screening without follow-up support does not change behaviour and can cause anxiety.
- Confidentiality: health data must be handled under data protection law; mandatory checks create risks.
- Unintended consequences: staff may fear job consequences and under-report.
What the evidence supports instead. Multi-component programmes: smoking cessation support, physical activity opportunities, healthy food options, stress management, and organisational change. Use the Ottawa Charter actions: build healthy public policy, create supportive environments, strengthen community action, develop personal skills, reorient health services.
Verdict. Reject the competition and mandatory checks; redirect the budget to evidence-based, voluntary, supportive interventions.
2. Propose a redesigned programme that addresses the survey findings and the call-centre stress, within the £150,000 budget.
Read the worked answer
Design principles. Voluntary, inclusive, multi-component, targeted where need is greatest, and evaluated.
Programme components.
- Smoking cessation (28% smokers): subsidised access to local stop-smoking services plus nicotine replacement; brief advice training for line managers. Cost-effective and evidence-based.
- Physical activity (41% inactive): subsidised gym or activity classes, walking routes, flexible lunch breaks, and a 'sit less' campaign. Avoid competitive weight-loss framing.
- Healthy eating: improve canteen and vending options; provide fruit; price incentives.
- Call-centre stress (60% high stress): this is the priority. Address organisational causes - workload, control, scheduling, break patterns - not just individual resilience. Use the HSE Management Standards. Provide manager training and accessible psychological support. Promote the EAP (currently low uptake) by destigmatising it, ensuring confidentiality, and offering self-referral.
- Evaluation: baseline and follow-up surveys; process, outcome and equity measures.
Budget allocation (illustrative). ~£50k smoking cessation, ~£40k physical activity, ~£30k stress/organisational, ~£20k healthy eating, ~£10k evaluation.
Justification. The biggest gains come from addressing the organisational drivers of stress and from supporting behaviour change, not from competitions. Targeting the call-centre team reduces inequalities within the workforce.
3. How would you evaluate the programme, and what would you do if the employer insists on the competition?
Read the worked answer
Evaluation framework. Use a logic model: inputs → activities → outputs → short-term outcomes → long-term outcomes.
- Process: reach, uptake, acceptability, equity of participation.
- Outcome: smoking quit rates, activity levels, weight, sickness absence, stress scores, EAP uptake.
- Design: before-and-after with a comparison group (e.g. another site) where feasible; avoid over-claiming causality.
- Equity: disaggregate by job grade, age, sex, ethnicity.
- Economic: cost per quit, cost per absence day avoided.
If the employer insists on the competition.
- Negotiate a modified version: voluntary, no public weigh-ins, focus on sustainable habits, team-based rather than individual ranking, and include support (dietitian, activity).
- Set safeguards: no cash prizes for 'most weight lost'; reward participation and maintenance; protect confidentiality.
- Document your advice in writing, including the evidence and ethical concerns, so the decision and its rationale are on record.
- Evaluate it honestly - if it is run, measure harms as well as benefits.
Professional stance. You can advise but not veto an employer's lawful decision; your duty is to give evidence-based advice, flag harms, and ensure any programme is evaluated. This is the judgement the exam tests: influence without authority, with the public's health protected.