Workplace wellness programmes are big business – in the USA, the market is around $8 billion – with a return-on-investment claim attributed to many studies that purportedly show their benefits (for example, see this meta-analysis from 2010). But the voluntary nature of participation makes it hard to evaluate their true effectiveness, as those who choose to participate may differ in key ways from those who do not. The National Bureau of Economic Research ran a recently published randomised-controlled study to more accurately assess the benefits of these programs. This study showed that compared to control groups, participants in the program did not take significantly fewer sick days. Nor were they more likely to stay in their job, nor get a promotion or get a pay hike. They didn’t spend any less on medication or hospital visits and showed no improvement in health behaviours such as using the gym or taking part in an annual running event. A few effects proved statistically significant (e.g. feeling subjectively happier at work and one measure of job satisfaction) but the remaining 37 measures were non-significant. This stringently-designed study suggests that there is no “return on investment” case for these programs othet than a tangential benefit in attracting healthy workers to the organization – a sort of targeted perk.
Journal Reference:
What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness StudyDamon Jones, David Molitor, Julian Reif
NBER Working Paper No. 24229
Issued in January 2018, Revised in June 2018