Abstract P134: Higher Optimal Lifestyle Score is Associated with Greater Workplace Productivity

• Published in: Circulation (New York, N.Y.) Vol. 125; no. suppl_10
• Main Authors: Boucher, Jackie L, VanWormer, Jeffrey J, Britt, Heather R, Peacock, James M, Graham, Kevin J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 13-03-2012
• ISSN: 0009-7322; 1524-4539
• DOI: 10.1161/circ.125.suppl_10.AP134

Abstract only
Introduction:
Unhealthy lifestyles are associated with low workplace productivity, but lifestyle risks tend to cluster and the impact of this is not well studied. This analysis examined the cross-sectional association between an optimal lifestyle score (OLS) and overall workplace productivity in the Heart of New Ulm Project.
Hypothesis:
It was hypothesized that a higher OLS would be associated with higher workplace productivity relative to a lower OLS.
Methods:
Complete data was available from 2,987 adults age 18-85 years (with ≥0.40 FTE work agreement) without self-reported diabetes or heart disease, who underwent a cardiovascular risk factor screening in 2009. For each participant, an OLS of 0-4 total points was created by summing one point for each of the following factors: non-smoker, ≥150 min/wk of moderately equivalent physical activity, 1-14 alcoholic drinks/wk, and ≥5 serv/d of fruits and vegetables. Overall productivity loss combined absenteeism and presenteeism from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire, reflecting the percentage loss of all available work hours (per work agreement) due to health reasons.
Results:
After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, and Perceived Stress Scale score, least squares adjusted mean±SE productivity loss was 9.9±1.9% for an OLS of 0, 5.7±0.6% for an OLS of 1, 4.9±0.4% for an OLS of 2, 4.9±0.4% for an OLS of 3, and 4.7±1.0% for an OLS of 4 (p for trend <0.001). Post hoc comparisons revealed that OLS’s of 0 were significantly different (p =0.05) from all other OLS’s, while OLS’s of 1, 2, 3, or 4 were statistically indistinguishable (p=0.05) from one another.
Conclusions:
A beneficial threshold of having at least one optimal lifestyle factor was observed. When productivity loss is converted to lost dollars under the assumptions that all employees work full time with an annual salary of $50,000, an OLS of 0 (-$4,950/employee) has over two-fold higher annual estimated workplace productivity losses relative to an OLS of 4 (-$2,350/employee). Employees with no optimal lifestyle habits, however, represent a very small proportion (1.5% of this analysis; 46 of 2,987) of the total workforce. As such, greater absolute economic benefits may be realized by focusing interventions primarily on supporting the maintenance of existing optimal lifestyle habits.