PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J R Terborg

Publications and source records attributed to J R Terborg.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Take Heart II: replication of a worksite health promotion trial.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a revised worksite health promotion program that featured an employee steering committee/menu approach to intervention. The "Take Heart II" program was evaluated using a quasi-experimental matched-pair design with worksite as the unit of analysis. Experimental and control worksites did not differ on baseline organizational or employee demographic variables or on baseline levels of dependent variables. Outcome and process results revealed consistent, but modest effects favoring intervention worksites on most measures. Cross-sectional analyses generally failed to produce statistically significant intervention effects, but cohort analyses revealed significant beneficial effects of the Take Heart II intervention on eating patterns, behavior change attempts, and perceived social support. Neither analysis detected a beneficial effect of intervention on cholesterol levels.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Take heart: results from the initial phase of a work-site wellness program.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effects of a low-intensity work-site heart disease risk reduction program using a matched pair design with work site as the unit of analysis. METHODS: Twenty-six heterogeneous work sites with between 125 and 750 employees were matched on key organization characteristics and then randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention conditions. Early intervention consisted of an 18-month multifaceted program that featured an employee steering committee and a menu approach to conducting key intervention activities tailored to each site. RESULTS: Cross-sectional and cohort analyses produced consistent results. At the conclusion of the intervention, early and delayed intervention conditions did not differ on changes in smoking rates, dietary intake, or cholesterol levels. There was considerable variability in outcomes among work sites within each condition. CONCLUSIONS: Despite documented implementation of key intervention activities and organization-level changes in terms of perceived support for health promotion, this intervention did not produce short-term improvements beyond secular trends observed in control work sites. Research is needed to understand determinants of variability between work sites.

Cholesterol↗
PubMed1994

Modifying dietary and tobacco use patterns in the worksite: the Take Heart Project.

This article describes the conceptual basis, design, and intervention approach for a worksite-based heart disease risk reduction project. Baseline characteristics of the 26 moderate size worksites participating in the Take Heart Project are also described. The trial is designed to produce changes at both the organization and employee level on tobacco use, dietary fat intake, and serum cholesterol. A key feature of the intervention is creation of employee steering committees to enhance ownership and involvement. From a menu of brief, low-intensity health education and environmental change activities, these committees select activities best suited to their worksite. The baseline characteristics of organizations randomized to intervention and control conditions were similar, and indicated a relatively high level of worksite activity related to cholesterol and smoking.

Cholesterol↗
PubMed1990

Work site smoking cessation: a meta-analysis of long-term quit rates from controlled studies.

Meta-analytic techniques were applied to 20 controlled studies of work site smoking cessation yielding a total of 34 comparisons of long-term (average = 12 months) quit rate (QR). An overall weighted mean effect size (ES) of .21 +/- .07 was found, indicating a modest but significant overall effect (P less than .01). The weighted average follow-up QR from all interventions was 13%. Based on previous research, characteristics associated with interventions, work sites, employees, and research methodology were identified as potential moderator variables. Apart from methodological variables, interventions conducted in smaller work sites (ES = .45 +/- .17), which lasted 2 to 6 hours (ES = .42 +/- .13), and which contained heavy smokers (ES = .28 +/- .07) were associated with the largest effect sizes. We were also interested in absolute quit rates. After controlling for methodological quality, programs that included a cessation group component (partial r = .39), that were not overly complicated (partial r = -.42), and that shared company and employee time (partial r = -.48), as well as the above variables had the strongest associations with QR. Implications for public health policy and future research are discussed.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Behavior change at the worksite: does social support make a difference?

PURPOSE: This study examines whether social support for behavior change at work is associated with changes in employee heart disease risk factors. DESIGN: A prospective correlational design was used with data sets collected 12 months apart. SETTING: Twenty-five small to medium worksites in Oregon. SUBJECTS. Participants were 689 men and 421 women volunteers who participated in two health assessments at the worksite on company time. MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, gender, social support, smoking behavior, dietary fat intake, and total blood cholesterol. RESULTS: Employees reporting strong social support at work for not smoking and for limiting dietary fat were less likely to smoke (r = -.11, odds ratio [OR] = .86) and to consume fat in their diets (r = -.10) at baseline. Employees who reported the most change in social support over a 12-month period were most likely to have stopped smoking (r = .15, OR = 1.31). Social support at baseline, however, was unrelated to change in smoking, dietary fat, or total blood cholesterol in a prospective design. Although women reported more social support at work than did men, no differential gender effects of social support were reported on heart disease risk status or change in risk status. CONCLUSION: Baseline social support at work did not predict future behavior change. The observed association between social support and lifestyle may be better explained as cognitive rationalization than by the impact of social support on behavior.

Adult↗