According to Jama, 80% of U.S. employers use health promotion programs and kcl retard slow k, and the global market reached $ 8 billion in 2020. According to the magazine “Benefits and Benefits”, the volume of the market in Russia is more modest and so far reaches only 1 billion rubles, but the small volume is compensated by high rates of development, including due to the active entry of the state into this direction. This proliferation of programs was facilitated by the popularization of programs in the world community – numerous evidences telling about the return of investments from the Ministry of Health of Russia (3-6 rubles per ruble invested) and from international companies such as Unilever Russia (4.5 rubles per ruble invested).
At the same time, recently in the scientific literature there are conflicting data on the effectiveness of programs, which may be associated with the wrong design of programs. Thus, a study conducted on a sample of 32974 workers and published in 2019 showed the effectiveness of a health promotion program on the prevalence of risk factors (an increase in the level of physical activity by 8.3% and by 13.6% overweight control). At the same time, the analysis did not show the effectiveness of the program for other medical indicators, as well as indicators of labor productivity. A similar study from the University of Illinois also found the program to be ineffective in terms of productivity.
But there is also strong scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the practice. So scientists at Harvard University have proven that health promotion programs bring significant savings to organizations – the return on investment can be about 3.27 rubles per ruble invested.
Recently, experts from around the world have been talking about the effectiveness of programs for organizations not only due to savings on medical costs, but also due to the impact on non-trivial indicators.
Forbes, for example, points to the relationship between substantial savings and having a long-term corporate health promotion strategy in the workplace. The main effects of a long-term strategy will be, first of all, low turnover (the loss of one employee can cost from 33% to 150% of his annual salary).
Mercer described the relationship between having a culture of health and lower employee turnover (11% lower on average).
Another important result of creating a culture of health and well-being is increased employee engagement. The return on investment in this block can be substantial, provided that 52% of workers in Russia are not involved in their work. The same research corporation Gullap showed that 20% of the most involved workers have an absenteeism rate (absence from work due to illness) 41% lower than the rest of the uninvolved workers.
Another consequence of creating a culture of health and well-being is to improve the quality of service in organizations. This is especially important for medical organizations, service companies, and companies with large sales departments. Researchers found a direct link between health and wellness programs and company profitability – sales growth in companies with health promotion systems was 37% higher. The effectiveness of preventive programs was also found in healthcare: for example, doctors who strengthen their health were 19% more likely to make correct diagnoses.
A survey of 1,200 respondents showed that workers who participate in health and well-being programs are 2.9 times more likely to recommend their workplace for employment, 1.5 times more likely to continue working in their current place, 3.3 times more likely feel proud of their work for the company than other employees.
Interestingly, if the employer offered 7-8 programs of prevention programs, then the eNPS (employee loyalty index) was “37 points” and 57% of employees were ready to recommend their employer (with 4-6 programs it was “6 points”). The highest scores on eNPS were programs for managing chronic disease in the workplace (not treatment, but prevention) and creating a healthy workplace environment. The study also showed that participants in the comprehensive program experienced stress 23% less often and were friendly with colleagues 28% more often.