steps to health: an evaluation of the impact · pdf fileof the impact of participating in the...

1 | P a g e

Centre for Organisational Health & Well-being

STEPS TO HEALTH: AN EVALUATION

OF THE IMPACT OF PARTICIPATING IN

THE GLOBAL CORPORATE CHALLENGE A report prepared for Nestle UK

By Philip Gibbs and Professor Susan Cartwright

12/1/2009

Centre for Organizational Health & Wellbeing

© This is a collaborative project undertaken within the Centre for Organizational Health & Well-

being on behalf of Nestle. This document is to be circulated for discussion purposes only and should

not be quoted without authors’ permission.

2 | P a g e


Contents

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Background 4

3. Global Corporate Challenge 4

4. Method 5

5. Results 7

6. Discussion 9

7. Conclusion 10

8. References 11

9. Appendix 12

3 | P a g e


Executive Summary

The preliminary aim of this report was to evaluate the health impacts of employees

participating in the Global Corporate Challenge within Nestle UK.

The GCC is a corporate wellness programme that encourages organisations and their

employees to be active by walking virtually around the world over a 125 day period.

Participants are required to work in teams of seven people, and are provided with

pedometers to record their daily step count.

Research has indicated a number of benefits for wellness type programmes which

encourage employees to be active and think about their own personal health and

well-being at work. Similarly the World Health Organisation has highlighted how

the average white collar worker spends most their time stationary or inactive which

can increase their risk of chronic disease. It hoped that after completing the GCC

results will reveal a number of improvements for those that took part.

All participants of the GCC within Nestle UK were sent a health and well-being

measure to complete before and again after completing the GCC. This measure

assessed participant’s health, sources of stress and their overall quality of life. In total

248 participants successfully completed both pre and post measurements for

analysis.

Results indicated a number of significant improvements. The most significant

impacts were identified with regards to people’s health specifically in terms of

enjoying normal day to day activities, concentration levels, and their overall health.

Results also indicated that it did help to reduce potential sources of stress in terms of

general well-being, as well as improve their quality of life in terms of their self

perceptions. Importantly there was also a significant improvement in people’s

productivity levels at work.

In conclusion the GCC appeared to have a number of positive improvements to

employees within Nestle UK and can be considered on the whole a worthwhile

wellness type programme for those that participated.

4 | P a g e


BACKGROUND

Nestle is considered to be the world leader in the manufacturing and marketing of packaged

food products. As an organisation that prides itself of operating high ethical standards it is

dedicated to deliver products which aim to improve the nutrition, health and wellness of

customers across the world. Nestle recognises the importance of not just caring for its

customers but also their employees. As such they are constantly seeking ways to create and

sustain a positive organisational culture where employees actively think about their own

health and well-being.

To help enact this vision Nestle have become one of the founding members within the

Centre for Organizational Health and Well-being (COHW). The Centre consists of a group of

world-class academics supported by a number of recognized, knowledgeable and

experienced Occupational Health and HR professionals, who collectively combine their

expertise to research current health and well-being issues at work. As a member of the

Centre this bespoke project was commissioned to help objectively evaluate the effectiveness

of participating in the Global Corporate Challenge (GCC) across sites based in the UK.

GLOBAL CORPORATE CHALLANGE

The GCC is a wellbeing programme that encourages organisations and employees to be

active. Companies and organisations from across the world are invited to partake in a global

‘stepathon’. The challenge is for participants to walk as far around the world as they can

over a period of 125 days. Organisations that take part encourage their employees to enter

into small teams of seven people. Each registered participant is provided with a pedometer

which they are required to wear each day so they can record their steps. Every day,

participants are required to log onto the GCC website and enter their daily steps. This figure

is then converted into kilometres/miles, and a graphical plot of the individual’s progress is

provided along a world map. As well as providing an individual analysis of each

participant, their team and organisation are also provided a summary and plot of their

progress along the way. Similarly the GCC team provide a range of important nutritional

and health information within starter packs and on their website.

This GCC is underpinned by the World Health Organisations (WHO) recommendation that

people should aim to walk an average of 10,000 steps a day to improve their health and well-

being. WHO have recognised that the average white collar worker spends a significant

amount of time stationary at a desk or inactive during work which can increase the risk of

chronic disease. Through participating in the GCC it is hoped participants will become more

active, as well as challenge their behaviours and personal habits by making people more

aware of the importance of their own personal health while at work. (GCC website)

5 | P a g e


As highlighted by Parks & Steelman (2008) there is a general belief that wellness type

programmes such as these will ultimately help target and promote good healthy practices

and positive work behaviours and so reduce absence rates and healthcare costs across their

organizations and increase performance. Ho (1997) found that employees perceive

organizations who offer wellness type programmes more positively and report higher levels

of job satisfaction compared to organisations that do not. Similarly the implementation of

these types of programmes can be effective of itself to demonstrate to employees that the

organization is committed to, and cares about them (Zoller, 2004). Faragher, Cass and

Cooper (2005) highlighted the link between job satisfaction and health. Other evidence has

suggested that participating in wellness type programmes also make employees feel better

physically which in turn has been linked to an increase in job satisfaction and general

psychological well-being (Kirkcaldy, Cooper, Shephard, and Brown, 1994). The following

study attempts to evaluate the effect on employees from Nestle UK participating within the

GCC 2009, through assessing any improvements in their personal health, sources of stress,

and quality of life. It hoped that after completing the GCC results will reveal a number of

improvements for those that took part.

METHOD

Design

A between subjects comparative design was adopted as data was gathered from the same

participants at two separate time points; Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2). The three sections of

the Health & Well-being Questionnaire (HWQ) were categorised into three higher order

constructs (Your Health, Sources of Stress, and Quality of Life) which were the dependent

study variables, while Time constituted as the independent variable.

Sample

In total 710 employees returned the HWQ at time 1 while 323 were returned at time 2. Of

these we were able to correctly identify and match data from 248 participants who had

completed the pre and post measures, and were used in this analysis. Participation in the

programme was voluntary and full informed consent was given. Of the 244 participants,

49% were male. The age of the participants ranged from 21 to 63 years with a mean age of 39

years and a standard deviation of 10.12 years. Similarly 89% of employees were in fulltime

employment, and the mean length of time employed within the organisation was 11 years

with a standard deviation of 9.58 years.

Materials

Data was gathered by the means of a questionnaire. The use of questionnaires or surveys

can be done either via internet or conventional paper and pencil method. Both

6 | P a g e


methods have been shown to be reliable across large multinational organisations. As

many of the participants did not have access to a computer it was decided that the

conventional paper pencil method would be adopted for this study. A copy of the survey

used in this study can be seen in the Appendix. The survey was called the Health and Well-

being Questionnaire (HWQ) and has four sections. The first section labelled ‘Your Details’

requires participants to provide a range of demographic details to identify themselves such

as age, gender and department etc. The second section of the questionnaire labelled ‘Your

Health’ has a total of 15 questions and evaluates their personal health over the past few

weeks. All questions were rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale and ran along a positive-

negative continuum, hence a low score for this section indicates better general health

question. Question items 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 ranged from 1 - better than usual to 4 – much less

than usual. Question items 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 ranged from 1 - not at all, to 4 – much more

than usual. Question item 13 was rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 -

always, to 4 – not usually, question 14 ranged from 1 – excellent, to 4 poor, and finally

question 15 ranged from 1 – 100% to 4 less than 80%.

The third section of the questionnaire called ‘Potential Sources of Stress’ has a total of 10 items

which evaluate possible sources of workplace stress. All questions are rated on a 5-Point

Likert-type scale where participants indicate their level of stress to each item from 1 – None,

to 5 Extensive, so a low score for this section indicates low in relation to levels of stress. The

fourth and final section labelled ‘Your Overall Quality of Life’ has a total of 14 items that

evaluate participant’s feelings towards their quality of life. All questions are rated on a 7-

point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 – Terrible, to 7 – Delighted, so a high score for this

section indicates better quality of life. It is important to note that both surveys for time 1 and

time 2 were identical with the exception of an additional evaluative question in the Your

Details section at time 2. The question simply stated ‘Did you participate in the Global

Corporate Challenge to the very end?’ Participants could answer either 1 – Yes, 2 – No, or 3

– Mostly.

Procedure

All participants in the GCC within Nestle UK were assigned a unique identification code by

Nestle Occupational Health team and posted a copy of the HWQ prior to starting the date

on the 21/06/09. Results from this time point formed the baseline measure for time one (T1).

After a period of 125 days the GCC finished on the 22/09/09, and the same participants who

had successfully returned their questionnaire with their unique ID code at time 1, were

again posted the HWQ. Results from this time point formed the measure for time 2 (T2).

Data Analysis & Missing data

All the data which formed the HWQ was checked for normality before using any parametric

statistical techniques. All values for skew and kurtosis were fine. The data was analysed

using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 17. To assist with

7 | P a g e


interpretation, descriptive statistics are reported in their raw form. Any missing values were

treated by adopting the pairwise cases exclusion technique.

RESULTS

In order to statistically test differences between the Time 1 and Time 2 a between-subjects

multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed for each of the three sections

of the HWQ. Time was entered as the independent variable while scores from each of the

study variables (question items) within Your Health, Potential Sources of Stress, and Overall

Quality of Life sections were entered as dependent variables. The Levene’s test was non-

significant for all dependent variables indicating that homogeneity of variance had been

met.

Your Health

The descriptive and univariate statistics for each of the Your Health variables are shown in

Table 1 which highlights the differences in scores between time one and time two. The

results revealed a number of significant multivariate effects over time. In total, 11 of the 15

study variables had a significant improvement this included; Item 1. Been able to concentrate

on what you are doing, F(1, 485) = 21.256, p < .001; Item 2. Lost much sleep over worry, F(1, 485) =

4.970, p < .05; Item 3 Felt that you are playing a useful part in things, F(1, 485) = 8.252, p < .01;

Item 4 Felt capable of making decisions about things, F(1, 485) = 10.451, p < .01; Item 5 Felt

constantly under strain, F(1, 485) = 11.237, p < .01; Item 7 Been able to enjoy your normal day to

day activities, F(1, 485) = 36.916, p < .001; Item 10 Been losing confidence in yourself, F(1, 485) =

4.371, p < .05; Item 12 Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered, F(1, 485) = 9.202, p <

.01; Item 14 Over the last three months how would you rate your overall health, F(1, 485) = 15.650, p

< .001; and finally item 15 Over the last three months roughly how productive have you felt in your

job, F(1, 485) = 4.126, p < .05. There were no significant multivariate effects over time for

items 6 Felt you couldn't overcome your difficulties, 9 Been feeling unhappy or depressed, and 13 Do

you take planned exercise, however in all cases the mean scores had improved. The inter-

correlations for these variables can be seen in Table 4 within the appendix.

Table 1 Descriptive and Univariate Statistics for the Your Health Study Variables

(Time 1 vs. Time 2)

Note: All scales are on a 5 point Likert-type scale with low scores indicating better general health

Your Health Variables

Time 1

(n = 248)

Time 2

(n = 248)

F-ratio

Mean SD Mean SD F(1, 485)

1. Been able to concentrate on what you are doing? 2.09 0.34 1.94 0.39 21.256***

2. Lost much sleep over worry? 1.93 0.69 1.80 0.61 4.970*

8 | P a g e


3. Felt that you are playing a useful part in things? 1.98 0.45 1.86 0.49 8.252**

4. Felt capable of making decisions about things? 2.00 0.36 1.89 0.43 10.451**

5. Felt constantly under strain? 2.14 0.71 1.95 0.54 11.237**

6. Felt you couldn't overcome your difficulties? 1.75 0.61 1.74 0.56 0.63

7. Been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities? 2.16 0.45 1.90 0.51 36.916***

8. Been able to face your problems? 2.05 0.29 1.95 0.40 9.758**

9. Been feeling unhappy or depressed? 1.74 0.67 1.67 0.62 1.826

10. Been losing confidence in yourself? 1.75 0.69 1.62 0.62 4.371*

11. Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? 1.42 0.59 1.34 0.54 2.752

12. Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered? 2.03 0.42 1.91 0.48 9.202**

13. Do you take planned exercise? 2.48 1.10 2.42 1.07 .320

14. Over the last three months how would you rate your

overall health?

2.29 0.76 2.02 0.67 15.650***

15. Over the last three months roughly how productive

have you felt in your job?

2.46 0.80 2.32 0.74 4.126*

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Potential Sources of Stress

The descriptive and univariate statistics for each of the Potential Sources of Stress variables

between time one and time two are shown in Table 2. Results indicate that only one variable,

item 23. General Well-being, had a significant multivariate effects over time F(1, 397) = 6.559, p

< .05. All of the other stress variables mean scores had improved, with the exception of item

17 Finances, and item 25 Coping With Daily Problems, which had increased slightly but

none were significant. The inter-correlations for these variables can be seen in Table 5 within

the appendix.

Table 2 Descriptive and Univariate Statistics for the Potential Sources of Stress Study Variables

(Time 1 vs. Time 2)

Note: All scales are on a 5 point Likert-type scale with low scores indicating lower sources of stress


Study Variables

Time 1

(n = 205)

Time 2

(n = 205)

F-ratio


16. Family 2.19 1.03 2.13 1.03 0.249

17. Significant Relationship 1.98 1.10 1.80 1.01 2.769

18. Health 1.97 0.93 1.80 0.87 3.615

19. Finances 2.19 0.98 2.22 1.05 0.128

20. Sex Life 1.66 0.87 1.51 0.78 3.382

21. Work 2.69 1.02 2.63 0.98 0.406

22. School / Studies 1.27 0.67 1.26 0.67 .007

23. General Well-being 1.88 0.74 1.69 0.79 6.559*

24. Emotional Well-being 2.06 0.90 1.91 0.89 2.835

25. Coping With Daily Problems 1.93 0.79 1.97 0.82 0.274

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

9 | P a g e


Overall Quality of Life

The descriptive and univariate statistics for each of the Overall Quality of Life variables

between time one and time two can be seen in Table 3. Results again indicated that only one

variable, item 35 Your self, had a significant multivariate effects over time F(1, 432) = 4.212, p

< .05. All of the other stress variables mean scores had improved, with the exception of item

29 Your job, which stayed the same, and item 30 Your co-workers / fellow students, which

marginally decreased but none were significant. . The inter-correlations for these variables

can be seen in Table 6 within the appendix.

Table 3 Descriptive and Univariate Statistics for the Overall Quality of Life Study Variables

(Time 1 vs. Time 2)

Note: All scales are on a 7 point Likert-type scale with high scores indicating better quality of life


Study Variables

Time 1

(n = 218)

Time 2

(n = 218)

F-ratio


26. Your personal life 5.27 1.05 5.41 1.06 1.837

27. Your wife / husband or significant other 5.38 1.41 5.59 1.28 2.685

28. Your romantic life 5.09 1.47 5.28 1.39 2.019

29. Your job 4.76 1.08 4.76 1.09 .005

30. Your co-workers / fellow students 5.08 0.95 5.05 0.89 .094

31. The actual work you do 4.85 1.00 4.88 1.03 .102

32. The handling of problems in your life 4.91 0.93 5.03 0.87 2.059

33. What you are actually accomplishing in your life 4.86 1.03 4.87 1.07 .047

34. Your physical appearance - the way you look to others 4.57 1.12 4.73 1.05 2.419

35. Your self 4.86 0.97 5.06 0.97 4.212*

36. Your ability to adjust to change in your life 4.93 0.97 5.07 1.01 1.139

37. Your life as a whole 5.17 0.97 5.34 0.95 3.497

38. Overall contentment with your life 5.16 1.00 5.28 1.01 1.462

39. The extent to which your life has been as you want it 4.85 1.12 4.97 1.10 1.245

*p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

DISCUSSION

The initial aim of this empirical investigation was to evaluate the effect of Nestle UK

participating in the Global Corporate Challenge over a period of 125 days on their general

10 | P a g e


health, stress levels and quality of life. The results of the two time conditions showed that a

number of significant improvements had been made over this period, which shall now be

discussed in more depth.

Your Health

This section of the HWQ indicated the most significant improvements for participants after

completing the GCC. The most significant improvements were concerned with people being

able to enjoy their day to day activities, better concentration, and their overall health.

Participants also reported that they felt happier, more useful, more capable of making

decisions, less strain and more able to face their problems. Similarly participants reported

that they were less likely to lose sleep over worry, and lose confidence in themselves.

Perhaps most interestingly there was also a significant improvement in people’s subjective

productivity levels, with participants indicating that over the last three months they felt

more productive in their job.


Overall reported sources of stress were fairly low, with the highest reported sources coming

from participants work and finances. These are not so surprising when you consider the

current economic climate which has brought about more uncertainty and job

insecurity. However after participating in the GCC participants reported a significant

improvement in their stress levels relating to their general wellbeing.


Participant’s feelings towards their overall quality of life on the whole were fairly positive

with people reporting they were mostly satisfied with their overall quality of life. The lowest

scores were concerned with feelings towards their job, and also their physical appearance to

others. These scores remained fairly consistent over time. As research has often highlighted

gender differences for physical appearance an independent t test was performed for time 1

and time 2. As suspected, at time 1 on average Female participants experienced more

concern over their physical appearance (M= 4.28, SE = 0.11), than Male participants (M =

4.79, SE = .10) and was significant t(235) = 3.48, p < .01. Again, this was reflected at time 2,

where on average Female participants experienced more concern over their physical

appearance (M = 4.57, SE = 0.10), than Male participants (M = 4.84, SE = 0.10), and was also

significant t(235) = 1.98, p < .05. However it is important to note that there was a significant

improvement with regards to how employees felt about themselves after completing the

GCC, perhaps indicating a sense of accomplishment and self worth.

11 | P a g e


CONCLUSION

Overall the evaluation provided some sound empirical support that participating in the

Global Corporate challenge did significantly improve people’s health and help to reduce

potential sources of stress in terms of general well-being, as well as improving their quality

of life in terms of perceptions of self. The most significant impacts were identified with

regards to people’s health specifically in terms of enjoying normal day to day activities,

concentration levels, and their overall health. Importantly there was also a significant

improvement in people’s productivity levels at work. Therefore in conclusion the GCC can

be considered to have made a number of positive impacts on the employees that

participated.

Cautionary Note

Although it appears the programme did have a positive impact upon employee health it is

important to note that there may have been other factors during this period which were not

part of the programme and presented within this analysis that could account for these

changes. Similarly all findings only apply to participants that were analysed within this

study so care should be taken when making generalisations.

REFERENCES

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction

and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105–112.

Ho, J. T. S. (1997). Corporate wellness programmes in Singapore: Effect on stress,

satisfaction, and absenteeism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12, 177–189.

Kirkcaldy, B. D., Cooper, C. L., Shephard, R. J., & Brown, J. S. (1994). Exercise, job

satisfaction and well-being among superintendent police officers. European Review of Applied

Psychology, 44, 117–123.

Parks, K. M., & Steelman, A. A., (2008). Organizational Wellness Programs: A Meta-

Analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(1), 58-68.

Zoller, H. M. (2004). Manufacturing health: Employee perspectives on problematic outcomes

in a workplace health promotion initiative. Western Journal of Communications, 68, 278–301.

12 | P a g e


Appendix

THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL CORPORATE

CHALLENGE ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH AND WELL BEING

Dear Colleague

In participating in the Global Corporate Challenge (GCC) you are committing to increase your daily

activity levels. We are interested in understanding the extent to which your participation in the GCC

improves your health and general well being and have asked the Centre for Organizational Health and

Well Being, at Lancaster University to conduct a research project. The project will involve all Nestle

GCC entrants in completing two short questionnaires. The first one is to be completed prior to the start

of the challenge and the other after the challenge is completed.

Individual details will remain confidential to the research team at Lancaster University. Nestle will only

receive a summary of the results. In order to compare your levels of personal health and well being,

you will be given an identifier number, but no names will be recorded against the data to ensure

anonymity. Questionnaires will be provided by your GCC Team Leader and we ask that when you have

completed it you will place it in the envelope provided and send to OH Solutions who will collate the

sealed replies and send to Lancaster – no individual questionnaire will be seen by any Nestle employee

We are sure that you will enjoy taking part in the GCC and that you will also contribute to the evaluation

study and complete the enclosed questionnaire which will only take you about 10 minutes.

Thank you for your co-operation

Dr David Batman - Head of Employee Wellness

13 | P a g e


THE IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL CORPORATE CHALLENGE HEALTH AND WELL BEING QUESIONNAIRE

1. YOUR DETAILS EMPLOYEE NUMBER:................................. GENDER: MALE/FEMALE (delete as appropriate) AGE (IN YEARS):.................... LENGTH OF TIME WITH THE ORGANIZATION: .................... YOUR DEPARTMENT?

PRODUCTION CUSTOMER SERVICES

HR/PERSONNEL SALES AND MARKETING

FINANCE LOGISTICS

IT R&D

OTHER OTHER, please specify .................................................................................................................................................. JOB ROLE: .................................................................................................. LOCATION: ................................................................................................. Do you work? FULL TIME / PART TIME (delete as appropriate) Did you participate in the Global Corporate Challenge to the very end? (Please circle)

Yes No Mostly

14 | P a g e


2. YOUR HEALTH

We want to know how your health has been in general over the last few weeks. Please read the questions below and each of the four possible answers. Circle the response that best applies to you. Have you recently: 1. been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?

better than usual same as usual less than usual much less than usual

2. lost much sleep over worry?

not at all no more than usual rather more than usual much more than usual

3. felt that you are playing a useful part in things?

more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than usual

4. felt capable of making decisions about things?

more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than usual

5. felt constantly under strain?


6. felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?


7. been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities? more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than usual

8. been able to face up to your problems? more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than usual

9. been feeling unhappy or depressed?


10. been losing confidence in yourself?


11. been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?


15 | P a g e


12. been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered? more so than usual same as usual less so than usual much less than usual

13. Do you take planned exercise?

always usually when possible not usually

14. Over the last three months, how would you rate your overall health?

excellent good alright poor

15. Over the last three months, roughly how productive have you felt in your job?

100% productive 90-99% productive 80-89% productive less than 80% productive

16 | P a g e


3. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF STRESS Answer each of the questions below by putting a circle around the number that best represents you at this time. Evaluate your stress levels relative to the following: None Slight Moderate Pronounced Extensive

16. Family 1 2 3 4 5 17. Significant relationship 1 2 3 4 5 18. Health 1 2 3 4 5 19. Finances 1 2 3 4 5 20. Sex life 1 2 3 4 5 21. Work 1 2 3 4 5 22. School/Studies 1 2 3 4 5 23. General well-being 1 2 3 4 5 24. Emotional well-being 1 2 3 4 5 25. Coping with daily problems 1 2 3 4 5

4. YOUR OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE Evaluate your feelings relative to the quality of life:

Terrible Unhappy Mostly

dissatisfied Mixed Mostly

satisfied Pleased Delighted

26. Your personal life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. Your wife/husband or “significant other” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Your romantic life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Your job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Your co-workers/fellow students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. The actual work you do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. The handling of problems in your life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. What you are actually accomplishing in your life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. Your physical appearance – the way you look to others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. Your self 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. Your ability to adjust to change in your life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. Your life as a whole 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. Overall contentment with your life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. The extent to which your life has been as you want it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Many thanks for taking part in the questionnaire and please be assured of your complete confidentiality and anonymity.

17 | P a g e

Table 4 - Inter-correlations of Your Health Study Variables (Time 2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Been able to concentrate on what you are

doing? 1

2. Lost much sleep over worry? .14** 1

3. Felt that you are playing a useful part in

things? .19** .21** 1

4. Felt capable of making decisions about

things? .16** .17* .35** 1

5. Felt constantly under strain? .26** .45** .22** .16** 1

6. Felt you couldn't overcome your

difficulties? .15** .45** .19** .27** .49** 1

7. Been able to enjoy your normal day to

day activities? .36** .27** .29** .26** .27** .30** 1

8. Been able to face your problems? .27** .24** .21** .32** .15** .29** .37** 1

9. Been feeling unhappy or depressed? .15** .39** .19** .22** .36** .52** .29** .23** 1

10. Been losing confidence in yourself? .09** .37** .19** .23** .32** .51** .26** .26** .63** 1

11. Been thinking of yourself as a worthless

person? .14* .36** .33** .27** .31** .43** .36** .37** .56** .62** 1

12. Been feeling reasonably happy all

things considered? .33** .26** .35** .31** .32** .31** .41** .38** .35** .28** .37** 1

13. Do you take planned exercise? .07 .07 .03 .09 .11* .03 .08 .02 .06 .03 .00 -.04 1

14. Over the last three months how would

you rate your overall health? .18** .24** .01 .09 .20** .21** .19** .08 .21** .20** .14* .12* .50** 1

15. Over the last three months roughly how

productive have you felt in your job? .23** .14* .14* .04 .20** .17** .13** .06 .30** .24** .30** .20** .04 .21** 1

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

18 | P a g e


Table 5 - Inter-correlations of Stressor Variables Time 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16. Family 1

17. Significant Relationship .56** 1

18. Health .31** .26** 1

19. Finances .24** .27* .28** 1

20. Sex Life .30** .49* .14* .16** 1

21. Work .16** .23* .20** .17** .18** 1

22. School / Studies .15** .22** .24** -.05 .16* .07 1

23. General Well-being .36** .38** .64** .32** .30** .40** .18** 1

24. Emotional Well-being .41** .55** .38** .37** .44** .37** .13* .69** 1

25. Coping With Daily Problems .35** .46** .39** .30** .29** .57** .06 .61** .64** 1

*p < .05. ** p < .01.

19 | P a g e


Table 6 - Inter-correlations of Quality of Life Variables (Time 2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

26. Your personal life 1

27. Your wife / husband or significant

other

.73** 1

28. Your romantic life .68** .85** 1

29. Your job .26** .08 .14* 1

30. Your co-workers / fellow students .19** .04 .02 .56** 1

31. The actual work you do .23** .10 .12* .73** .48** 1

32. The handling of problems in your life .55** .42** .42** .44** .38** .45** 1

33. What you are actually accomplishing

in your life

.48** .40** .47** .45** .26** .48** .58** 1

34. Your physical appearance - the way

you look to others

.34** .32** .38** .15** .08 .20** .40** .51** 1

35. Your self .50** .37** .41** .31** .24** .31** .52** .57** .69** 1

36. Your ability to adjust to change in

your life

.45** .34** .34** .37** .34** .35** .60** .57** .47** .61** 1

37. Your life as a whole .68** .54** .49** .36** .23** .34** .62** .58** .45** .63** .60** 1

38. Overall contentment with your life .69** .53** .50** .39** .26** .37** .64** .61** .45** .66** .59** .89** 1

39. The extent to which your life has been

as you want it

.64** .50** .49** .28** .18** .32** .54** .60** .44** .52** .50** .73** .77** 1

20 | P a g e


*p < .05. ** p < .01.

steps to health: an evaluation of the impact · pdf fileof the impact of participating in the...

Documents