The interest in promoting a healthy workplace has been rising in the past years, and the research to inform best practices has been in demand. The issue Kent et al. (2016) addressed was fairly clearly focused, aiming to pinpoint and evaluate the essential components of employer-subsidized health and wellness promotion initiatives. The researchers clearly describe their perspective regarding the need for such initiatives and the importance of practice-research coordination. A combination of literature review, expert panel discussions, and workplace visits was carried out to achieve that aim. The sample size for the research was nine firms with 150 individuals total (approximately 16 per site), which were selected from the initial list of 22 companies. Each site was visited by the researchers once for 6-7 hours, in-person interviews and focus group meetings were conducted during that time. No untoward events were mentioned throughout the study, indicating that none occurred.
The research design, in this case, was somewhat appropriate to answer the posed question, with the method description being only partial. The literature review process focused on synthesizing articles focused on the best real-life, broad practices. The researchers stated that they purposefully steered away from an exclusively medical angle to make their findings more applicable, however, this decision may have compromised the representability of data for specific settings. The section on the literature review does not mention the number of initially found and selected articles for informing the best practices. The experts were selected from academia, commercial, and non-profit organizations and were invited to identify critical elements, challenges, promising and best practices, implementation, and outcome measures. However, having only 60 to 90 minutes for an expert panel discussion with six experts may be too short of a time to sufficiently cover all nine topics the researchers identified. No recordings or a code system was mentioned to organize and analyze the data. Lastly, the researchers targeted the employers that were either officially recognized or unofficially recommended for healthy company culture.
Furthermore, the data analysis and quality control raise particular concerns: first, no validity or reliability measures were explicitly discussed. Second, no raw data with interview materials or codes is attached or referenced throughout the study. The limited sample size, the selected convenience sampling methodology, and the lack of quantitative analysis of common responses further undermine the reliability and validity of the conclusions. Much of the discussion is in generic terms, ‘nitpicking’ specific examples to support each point and using vague language such as “some of the organizations” (Kent et al., 2016, p. 120). Lastly, the primary data collection was only done once and not repeated by different researchers. Thus, while relevant for practice, the study results are questionable in terms of credibility. In terms of practical implications, this study would be more credible if the researchers included quantitative support for their recommendations.
Overall, the study’s findings concerning communication strategies in the field were consistent with extant research. Kent et al. (2016) identified key areas of healthy culture: support of the environment, both physical and social, leadership commitment, and employee involvement. Likewise, the health culture findings aligned with previous studies, although less material was available on the matter. One big area that seemed to be missing from this research is other aspects of the physical environment, such as building interior design, indoor climate, and privacy, all of which are crucial to a healthy culture (Jensen & van der Voordt, 2019). The study thus does not contribute any new insights – instead, it highlights and recommends some of the existing practices. While the study’s conclusions are consistent with the discussion of results, they are rather vague, which is an inevitable consequence of a broad question scope. However, given the aforementioned concerns regarding the research methodology and analysis, such recommendations may be deemed arbitrary. The study’s findings may be extrapolated to other areas due to the broad scope of the question since the practices and approaches are generally applicable to various organizations.
References
Jensen, P. A., & van der Voordt, T. J. M. (2019). Healthy workplaces: What we know and what else we need to know. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 22(2), 95–112. Web.
Kent, K., Goetzel, R. Z., Roemer, E. C., Prasad, A., & Freundlich, N. (2016). Promoting healthy workplaces by building cultures of health and applying strategic communications.Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 58(2), 114–122. Web.