Introduction
Organisational and workplace wellness programs can be expounded as services sponsored by employers so that the good health of workers are enhanced and maintained throughout their tenures in office. As much as such programs are quite unique in terms of the broad objectives and applications, they can still be readily differentiated from organisational health care programs that often lay a lot of emphasis on worker’s assistance and health insurance.
On the other hand, organisational and workplace wellness programs aims at promoting healthy behavioural patterns and rectifying workers’ poor health behaviours in order to promote the operation and productivity of employees at workplace. Workplace wellness programs may entail myriads of activities such as physical fitness and reduction of smoking tendencies (Juniper, 2013).
Individuals with certain disabilities are often not physically active compared to persons who have not been diagnosed with instances of disabilities. In addition, people with high rates of overweight, depressive episodes and other terminal conditions that happen secondarily or besides the basic disability are also highly likely to be at high risk.
In a similar way to other groups of individuals who are not disabled, persons with disabilities may gain from programs that improve regular health and wellness checks alongside screenings and auxiliary medical enhancements especially when it comes to individual lifestyles, entailing physical fitness and psychological wellbeing.
This position paper is indeed a requisite document that can be instrumentally used in a practical workplace wellness program. It can also be embraced to satisfy the needs of people with disabilities. Since this position paper targets workplace wellness programs for workers with disabilities, the term “disability” has been critically used within the present context of the Disabilities Act which was adopted in the United States way back in 1990.
Although this Act has gone through a number of amendments, the definition of disability is still the same. The primary description of the term ‘disability’ refers to either a physical or mental complication that remarkably impedes one or multiple core activities in the life of an individual. In contrast, the term ‘employee’ refers to a person hired by an employer in order to perform specifically defined roles.
In regards to ‘workplace wellness programs’, they comprise of several activities that are either partially or fully sponsored by an employer in order to enhance good health of the workforce. In some cases, they are described as corporate wellness programs especially if a corporation plays the role of an employer. Health promotion programs can also be used to describe wellness programs at workplace.
Position taken
Governments and medical organizations across the globe support the execution of a comprehensive package of wellness initiatives in all workplaces (Lee, Blake & Lloyd, 2010). This is the same position taken by this paper. The latter projects may offer crucial ways of identifying and solving the rising rate of terminal illnesses, sedentary behaviour and overweight.
Successful programs will rapidly commit employees in operations that optimize their individual health and well being. It can also assist them to develop quickly as part of responding to their assumed value. Workers can equally experience sustainable growth in the presence of wellness programs at workplace.
As much as such programs may differ, a comprehensive program ought to comprise a number of measures that ensure employees are well taken care of while at work. For instance, cardiovascular disease prevention, weight management, nutrition, education, stress management, physical activity, as well as tobacco cessation/prevention should be included at all workplaces so that vulnerable individuals (such as disabled people) can benefit from the program.
As a matter of fact, a workforce that is terminally-ill cannot be productive as anticipated. Irrespective of the interventions put in place, an evaluation of readiness to undertake change should be evident. Both the external and internal workplace needs ought to be addressed by the adopted programs. In other words, distinguishing differences such as intellectual capacity, ethnicity, age, and gender among workers sho
uld not be used to discriminate workers at any given time. Moreover, such programs ought to entail adequate adjustment of the workplace so that it can be possible to enhance wellness through rigorous decision making and healthy behaviours among employers and employees.
Scope
For this position paper, a broad scan of the existing body of literature on the subject has been carried out. In order to capture the objectives of the paper, the essay has narrowed down to focus on people diagnosed with disabilities. The study may have not been comprehensive without addressing a number of research questions within the position paper.
For instance, the paper explores the responsibilities of employers in encouraging both the productivity and healthy wellbeing of employees with disabilities (Zula, Yarrish, Karen, & Lee, 2013). The methodology and rationale for developing workplace wellness programs and the aspects included in workplace wellness initiatives are also part and parcel of the scope of this paper.
We may also be interested to question the extent to which employers strive to enhance a healthy wellbeing of disabled employees especially when it comes to issues such as autonomy, occupational advancement, employee benefits, regular salary increases and professional development.
In addition, the position paper hints at strategies that employers can deploy to develop wellness programs which can be accessed by disabled people. The unique features of employers who offer accessible or generally designed initiatives are crucial in this position paper. The outstanding elements of wellness initiatives that have improved the overall wellbeing of employees are also pertinent in this discussion.
The scope of this position paper also entails in-depth research involving published peer‐reviewed journal articles that date back to 2008. These empirical journal articles provide important insights into the study of wellbeing at workplace for employees with disabilities.
Background
Wellness programs are embraced at various workplaces across the globe with the aim of attempting to promote a healthy well‐being of workers (Goetzel, Ozminkowski, Bowen, & Tabrizi, 2008). As much as the overarching function of workplace wellness programs is to offer a gainful outcome on investment by minimising cases of absenteeism and reducing insurance premiums paid to cover health priorities, the prime merit has been the development of healthier employees that transforms into a healthy population.
Unfortunately, only a few employees has realised the benefits of the latter regardless of the immense performance of the merger. In particular, the requirements of workers with disabilities are yet to be discussed or catered for in most workplace wellness programs. Hence, this paper focuses on the limit at which workplace wellness programs may be instituted and embraced by both corporate and business organizations.
Better still, workplace wellness programs can still be universally designed to match the needs of individuals diagnosed with one or more forms of disabilities. This can be a strategy to improve the selection, hiring and retention of individuals with disabilities within a given workforce. It may also enhance the return to work for employees who have already encountered latest onset of disabilities.
The issue of disability has indeed been discussed for a long time even though the desire to deal with the challenge is still a clarion call. Nonetheless, it took quite long before the World Health Organisation amended it categorisation of disability as a unique system on its own.
The amendments equally embrace complex interactions with the surrounding and it can also be appreciated as a substantial impact to the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities. This latest categorisation for disability indeed illuminates the deeper underlying pertinent factors that employers ought to address while working with employees who are disabled in one way or another.
Although the definition of disability according to the above context is purely related to work, it is crucial to mention that most jurisdictions are interested in a healthy wellbeing of all citizens regardless of their employment status. For people with disabilities, the importance of wellness programs at workplace cannot be overemphasized. Even in cases whereby organizations are either not willing or are unable to offer the much-needed wellness programs to disabled persons, there are still laws and policy regulations in place that can compel employers to act appropriately.
Past empirical and qualitative studies on workplace wellness have unanimously concluded the desire to enhance improved health outcomes among employees who are disabled. However, the approach assumed should be proactive enough. These include rewards/incentives, effective services and education through capacity building and training.
The measures put in place as part of the wellness program are supposed to be as varied and effective as possible. As it stands now, business organizations and corporate bodies are boosting their understanding and application of health to comprise a wider sense of psychological wellness with intense focus to prevent health-related challenges.
Securing additional time and financial resources to promote the health of employees is not a recent undertaking or initiative among employers. Some three decades ago, the establishment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act took place. It stipulated minimum guidelines for several voluntarily incepted pension and health schemes within the private sector.
The main goal of establishing this piece of legislation was to offer protection for people covered with the aforementioned plan. Besides, some employers have already been providing wellness programs and health‐related services for their respective workers. The only recent development is that the medical community took the centre stage and a lading role in health promotion programs as an approach to avoid or postpone the beginning of some terminal conditions.
As it stands now, communities of individuals who suffer from various cases of disabilities inform the medical fraternity and workplace wellness program sector that people with disabilities may indeed postpone or completely avoid chronic complications by taking part in wellness programs (Gonzales, 2010).
Employee Assistance Programs (EAP) also comes in handy in this discussion. Corporations initially started assisting workers with health‐related cases like mental health and alcoholism before the beginning of the start of 1960s (von Schrader, Malzer, & Bruyère, 2014). The programs were largely peer‐led and they also marked the earlier versions and self-driven initiatives for Employee Assistance Programs.
It is interesting to note that the earlier wellness programs among employees with disabilities gained a lot of popularity and consequently left indelible marks in this industry. Needles to say, the form and structure of workplace wellness programs being witnessed today were largely borrowed from the mid decades of the 20th century.
Over the years, the Employee Assistance Programs have massively transformed into remarkable gains for workers since they do not merely discuss injury prevention, risk management and substance abuse. They equally address broader aspects like domestic violence, legal problems, family matters, and care for the older people among others.
Currently, EAPs are a core employer‐based gain which assists several workers to remain productive effective at workforce. Organisational and workplace wellness programs initially surfaced in the literature during the early years of 1980s (Gowrisankaran et al., 2013).
Since then, a lot of quantitative work has been carried out to reaffirm the merits of health promotion programs. One of the core gains of wellness programs (and also swift to measure) is lowering the frequency of absenteeism as will be explored later in this position paper.
Evidence: Support for the position taken
In spite of the methodological setbacks like information from a single source, lack of control and self‐reported information, there are myriads of readily accessible studies which conclude that workplace health promotion programs may enhance employees’ health and productivity.
Baicker, Cutler and Song (2010) explain the features of effective programs, comprising their capability to evaluate the requirements for services, attract key players, utilize behavioural theory as the cornerstone of the studies, integrating several ways of reaching people, and instituting efforts to weigh the effects of the program adopted.
Promising practices have also been observed across multiple organisations. For example, senior management support systems have been deeply ingrained in most of the wellness programs in contemporary organisations.
Current evidence reveals that close to 90 major companies in the United States have already employed at least some type of wellness programs at their workplaces (Call, Gerdes, & Robinson, 2009). On the contrary, only less than 20 percent of organisation located outside the US offer wellness programs in their operations.
Moreover, each organisation or a corporate body offers a unique wellness program according to nature of operations in place. These assertions coincide with the position that was earlier taken in the paper. In any case, we may not expect wellness programs for employees with disabilities to be the same across all geographical regions and company profiles.
For some organisations, external consultants are hired to provide professional wellness programs that suit the needs of various classes of workers including those who are disabled. There are numerous examples and proofs of how wellness programs have been successfully applied by leading organisations as analyzed below.
To begin with, the C. Everett Koop National Health Award pointed out several winners who were identified as exemplary implementers of workplace wellness programs with clear focus to disabled people. The award assesses programs on a yearly basis with the assistance of experts.
The programs targeted include those attached to other organisations, government agencies, insurance companies, health provider groups and immediate communities. In 2008, a number of organisations scooped top prizes under this award scheme (Call et al., 2009).
For instance, Dow Chemical Company initiated a program to reduce instances of overweight. Some of the measures that were put in place comprised the provision of healthy food options in company‐sponsored meetings, cafeterias and vending machines. Besides, the company guided workers on how to manage their roles and lifestyle activities on a daily basis.
Specific messages aimed at encouraging a healthy eating diet were circulated all over the workplace within the organisation. The recognition programs that the company opted to reduce at workplace also played a major role in the wellness program (Call et al., 2009).
It is also vital to mention that the company instituted other intervention measures such as capacity building and training for employees, setting up workplace health improvement objectives and strategic positioning of leaders in the sense that even the disabled employees were granted leadership roles in various capacities. Since the program was being monitored, recorded and analyzed by experts, the outcomes were ready after a period of one year.
Some of the key and visible benefits realized after the given period included:
- Reduced instances of tobacco intake
- Lower rates of employee absenteeism
- Improved blood pressure levels
- Favourable weight gain/loss among workers
The above initiative was dubbed ‘Lighten Up Program’ (Call at al., 2009). From the program outcomes, it was evident that organisations can indeed play a superb role in improving the wellbeing of employees. Above all, the program was evidence‐based, comprehensive and well developed. The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute play a crucial role in this initiative since it provides fiscal assistance to finance the project.
Another typical example of a successful wellness program for employees has been witnessed in the Energy Corporation of America (ECA). The Platinum Wellness Program has been a major success for the organisation. Although it is a small organisation (with less than 600 employees), it has created an impressive, comprehensive, well‐incorporated and strategically executed wellness initiative.
The existing initiative is controlled by both theory and evidence‐based practices. In spite of the fact that it is a small employer, the organisation has recruited two full‐time members of staff to manage its wellness project for employees. Nurse planning programs with each participating worker takes place annually, and spouses are entitled to take part.
Yearly consultations with medical experts also seek to solve various health risks that emerge on a regular basis. Some of the risks include such as tobacco use, nutrition, activity and weight loss.Moreover, learning sessions are held for health guidance and prevention of terminal illnesses. EAC also offers round the clock assistive services. The company has already attained or gone beyond the required 6 out of the 8 goals of “Healthy People 2010” objectives.
Current statistical proofs indicate that EAC has attained a 26 % tobacco quit rate. The high‐risk population has equally been diminishing by an average of 1.4 % per annum over the last half a decade. Medical costs have stagnated for a period of 6 years.
These are clear and irreproachable pieces of evidences that qualify the noble role played by wellness programs in organisations. Other organisations that have implemented wellness programs and evidence-based practices include the International Business Machine (IBM), Lincoln Industries, Pepsi Bottling Group, and Wisconsin Energy Corporation.
Discussion
Besides offering substantial economic gains, employment provides individuals with disabilities vital social advantages like self worth, personal achievement, activity, involvement, social contacts and support as well as social identity and status. Nevertheless, owing to personal, emotional, and mental disadvantages, only 40 percent of disabled persons secure jobs.
About 22.3 million (12.8 percent) of people within the employable age bracket have reported some kind of disability in the US. The age bracket in this report ranged between 21 and 64 and equally represented about 12.8 %. Within this category, 37 % had secured job opportunities. On the other hand, 80 % of those working were made up of people without any form of disabilities.
These are major disparities that have replicated themselves in the wellness programs offered by organisations at workplace. The socio-economic and health status of most disabled people are also deplorable. Unless affirmative action is put in place within organisations, this segment of the population might continue to face innumerable challenges in the face of humanity (Horwitz, Kelly, & DiNardo, 2013).
Wellness programs for workers with disabilities have a broad spectrum that requires thoughtful considerations by organisational managers and leaders. Factors affecting wellness for employees have been summarised in the chart below:
As already hinted out, there are three main wellness programs that can be directed towards persons with disabilities. These include community-based wellness programs, government wellness programs and workplace wellness programs. However, this discussion restricts itself to the wellness program offered by employers at the place of work.
Well-established organisations have recently begun contemplating how to adjust their wellness initiatives in order to offer fair access and accommodations to disabled individuals. Return On investment (ROI) is apparently the main rationale behind most wellness initiatives in organisations.
Organisational managers should make sure that any amendments they make adhere to the regulations in place and equally delivers a positive Return On Investment. Any wellness program for disabled employees in organisations should begin by a ‘litmus test’ to assess whether it is compatible with the needs of disabled workers.
The values, norms, guidelines and cultures of an organisation strongly determine the employability of a disabled person. It is highly recommended for organisations to develop corporate cultures that are in tandem with the inherent needs of workers.
The same cultures should also be reflected in the adopted wellness programs. This implies that wellness programs for disabled employees should be free of any attitudinal and physical barriers if they are to reap the same benefits as workers who are not disabled (Gabel et al., 2009).
Conclusion
To recap it all, workplace wellness programs are indeed beneficial to both workers and employers in organisations owing to its cost‐effective nature. Of crucial importance in this position paper is the linkage between workplace wellness programs and disability management initiatives in organisations.
From the above analyses and discussion, there are broad benefits of workplace wellness programs as evidenced in a number of organisations. For example, Return On Investment (ROI) coupled with enhanced productivity of employees are realised in organisations that practice wellness programs. Nevertheless, organisational managers should be keen and articulate enough when developing wellness programs that target the disabled employees.
References
Baicker, K., Cutler, D., & Song, Z. (2010). Workplace wellness programs can generate savings. Health Affairs, 29(2), 304-11.
Call, C., Gerdes, R. & Robinson, K. (2009). Health and Wellness Research Study: Corporate and Worksite Wellness Programs: A Research Review Focused on Individuals with Disabilities. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/odep/research/CorporateWellnessResearchLiteratureReview.pdf
Gabel, J. R., Whitmore, H., Pickreign, J., Ferguson, C. C., Jain, A., & Scherer, H. (2009). Obesity and the workplace: Current programs and attitudes among employers and employees. Health Affairs, 28(1), 46-56.
Goetzel, R. Z., Ozminkowski, R. J., Bowen, J., & Tabrizi, M. J. (2008). Employer integration of health promotion and health protection programs. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 1(2), 109-122.
Gonzales, D. (2010). Integrated approach to safety. Professional Safety, 55(2), 50-52.
Gowrisankaran, G., Norberg, K., Kymes, S., Chernew, M. E., Stwalley, D., Kemper, L., & Peck, W. (2013). A hospital system’s wellness program linked to health plan enrollment cut hospitalizations but not overall costs. Health Affairs, 32(3), 477-85.
Horwitz, J. R., Kelly, B. D., & DiNardo, J. E. (2013). Wellness incentives in the workplace: Cost savings through cost shifting to unhealthy workers. Health Affairs, 32(3), 468-76.
Juniper, B. (2013). Workplace health promotions: How to attract the staff you want to reach. Occupational Health, 65(9), 18-20.
Lee, S., Blake, H., & Lloyd, S. (2010). The price is right: Making workplace wellness financially sustainable. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 3(1), 58-69.
von Schrader, S., Malzer, V., & Bruyère, S. (2014). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(4), 237-255.
Zula, K., Yarrish, Karen, K. & Lee, S. (2013). An evaluation of workplace wellness programs: A perspective from rural organizations. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(3), 659-668.