Running head: WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 1

The Importance of Worksite Wellness Programs in Preventing Diabetes

Sarah Swertfeger

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 2

The prevalence of diabetes in the United States is a major problem. There are

approximately 1.5 million Americans newly diagnosed with diabetes every year (American

Diabetes Association, 2017). Many people in the United States are not aware that they have

diabetes, and it was the seventh leading cause of death in 2015 (Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, 2017). In 2012, 176 billion dollars were spent on direct medical costs on diabetes in

the United States (American Diabetes Association, 2017). Statistics run by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (2017) have found that 9.4 percent of the population in the

United States has diabetes. They have also found that of those aged eighteen and older, 33.9

percent of the United States population has prediabetes based on fasting glucose and hemoglobin

A1C levels. To help prevent the growth of diabetes cases, worksite wellness programs should be

implemented. With prevalence rates increasing as we age, starting prevention strategies in the

workplace can be extremely helpful (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). There

have been studies showing the success that worksite wellness programs can have on employees’

health and wellbeing, including decreasing incidences of diabetes and risk factors contributing to

diabetes (Kramer, et al., 2015). Healthy People 2020 aims to lower the annual number of new

diagnosed diabetes cases by ten percent. They also aim to increase the prevention behaviors of

those individuals at a high risk for diabetes (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,

2010). By placing a public health educator in the workplace, we can help reach our goal by

lowering diabetes prevalence in the population targeted in Healthy People 2020, as well as help

those with a higher risk of developing diabetes to practice more preventive behaviors.

One of the many ways a public health educator would make a difference in a workplace

setting is by providing community empowerment through interventions they can create. One way

to establish empowerment, is to create feelings of control for employees about their health. By
WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 3

having a sense of control over different factors and decisions that can shape their lives,

employees can understand the different assets and resources available to them. A public health

educator in the workplace will give employees that feeling of empowerment, and help them feel

that they are in control of the different decisions that shape their lives (Cook, Foley, & Sameah,

2016).

Health educators can also be beneficial to a workplace because they can serve as a health

education resource to all employees. Which means, any specific question an employee may have

about their personal health can be answered by the health education specialist present. The help

that the public health educator provides can be specific and individualized to the person. Having

more person-specific education increases the likelihood of participation in the program (Schult,

McGovern,Dowd & Pronk, 2006). This is a benefit of the workplace because these more

individualized approaches to health may not be available to people outside of the workplace

setting. Individuals with access to a public health educator in the workplace setting can have

specific questions answered for their individual needs.

It has been found that diabetes rates increase as we age, with rates highest among

individuals 65 and older (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). This age-group is

less likely to be in the work force due to retirement, therefore, leaving out the largest population

with diabetes for intervention programs. Although we may not be able to target the largest age

population in the workplace, we can attempt to combat the growing rates of diabetes with age as

adults enter the work-force. With a public health educator in the workplace, as employees retire,

they will already have the proper education and feelings of control needed to prevent the onset of

diabetes. With many worksite wellness programs focusing on primary prevention, health

educators can provide long-lasting health improvements that can continue into old age (Cook,
WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 4

Foley, & Sameah, 2016). A public health educator in the workplace will give employees and

their families the tools they need for further transference of preventative behaviors even in older

age when employees are out of the workplace.

Worksite wellness programs can help to reach a plethora of individuals, including those

who may not have utilized other community health programs (Cottrell, Girvan, Seabert, Spear, &

McKenzie, 2018). While educators in a workplace setting can reach many individuals, those in

school settings only have access to young people who may not take their health and wellness

seriously yet. Furthermore, health educators working in the school setting typically have fewer

resources available to them (Cottrell, Girvan, Seabert, Spear, & McKenzie, 2018). Although the

community can be an excellent place to practice education and prevention strategies, the

workplace provides information to more people, and can be more individualized than what can

be provided by a community health education specialist (Cottrell, Girvan, Seabert, Spear, &

McKenzie, 2018). Therefore, a public health educator in the workplace would be most valuable

than any other setting in helping to lower the annual number of new diagnosed diabetes cases by

ten percent.

Overall, worksite health promotion can provide prevention strategies to a multitude of

people on different levels. Having a public health educator on site provides many opportunities

for combating diabetes. By working with individuals and tailoring interventions to their specific

needs while providing the necessary education, a public health educator can lower diabetes

prevalence in the workplace. It can also help to increase more prevention behaviors. Feelings of

empowerment along with someone who can answer individual questions and concerns are a few

of the many reasons that the workplace is the best setting for a public health educator to prevent

more new cases of diabetes.

WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 5

References

American Diabetes Association. (2017, July 19). Statistics About Diabetes. Retrieved September

06, 2017, from http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-

basics/statistics/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). National Diabetes Statistics Report.

Retrieved September 6, 2017, from

https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pdfs/data/statistics/national-diabetes-statistics-report.pdf

Cook, L. H., Foley, J. T., & Sameah, L. M. (2016). An exploratory study of inclusive worksite

wellness: Considering employees with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal.

Retrieved September 11, 2017, from

http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.uncg.edu/science/article/pii/S1936657415001521

#bib29

Cottrell, R. R., Girvan, J. T., Seabert, D., Spear, C., & McKenzie, J. F. (2018). Principles and

foundations of health promotion and education. NY, NY: Pearson.

Kramer, M. K., Molenaar, D. M., Arena, V. C., Venditti, E. M., Meehan, R. J., Miller, R. G., . . .

Kriska, A. M. (2015). Improving Employee Health. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 57(3), 284-291. doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000350

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2010, December). Diabetes. Retrieved

September 06, 2017, from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-

objectives/topic/diabetes/objectives
WORKSITE WELLNESS PROGRAMS IN PREVENTING DIABETES 6

Schult, T. K., McGovern, P. M., Dowd, B., & Pronk, N. P. (2006). The Future of Health

Promotion/Disease Prevention Programs: The Incentives and Barriers Faced by

Stakeholders. Journal Of Occupational And Environmental Medicine, 48(6), 541-548.

doi:10.1097/01.jom.0000222565.68934.0b