Defining ‘Integration’ for Total Worker Health®: A New Proposal

The effects of work and the conditions of employment on health behaviors and intermediate health conditions have been demonstrated, to the extent that these relationships should be addressed in efforts to prevent chronic disease. However, conventional health promotion practice generally focuses on personal risk factors and individual behavior change. In an effort to find solutions to the myriad of health challenges faced by the American workforce, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established the Total Worker Health® (TWH) program. Originally organized around the paradigm of integrating traditional occupational safety and health protections with workplace health promotion, TWH has evolved to a broader emphasis on workplace programs for enhancing worker safety, health, and well-being. Among the research programs and approaches developed by investigators at NIOSH Centers of Excellence for TWH and elsewhere, definitions of ‘integration’ in workplace interventions vary widely. There is no consensus about which organizational or individual outcomes are the most salient, how much to emphasize organizational contexts of work, or which program elements are necessary in order to qualify as ‘Total Worker Health’. Agreement about the dimensions of integration would facilitate comparison of programs and interventions which are self-defined as TWH, although diverse in content. The specific criteria needed to define integration should be unique to that concept—i.e. distinct from and additive to conventional criteria for predicting or evaluating the success of a workplace health program. We propose a set of four TWH-specific metrics for integrated interventions that address both program content and process: (i) coordination and interaction of workplace programs across domains; (ii) assessment of both work and non-work exposures; (iii) emphasis on interventions to make the workplace more health-promoting; and (iv) participatory engagement of workers in pivotal ways during intervention prioritization and planning to develop self-efficacy in addressing root causes, skill transfer, building program ownership, empowerment, and continuous improvement. Thus we find that integration requires organizational change, both to engage two managerial functions with different goals, legal responsibilities, and (often) internal incentives & resources, and also to orient the organization toward salutogenesis. Examples from research activity within the Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace illustrate how these criteria have been applied in practice.