The Role of Innovation

Panelists discussed the merits and limitations of looking at peer-reviewed evidence to inform decisions about which program and policies to implement. They recognized that evidence obtained from formal research studies takes time to publish and even after dissemination it may be difficult to translate into scalable programs in worksites. For example, it is estimated that it takes 17 years for scientific knowledge or guidelines to be implemented into practice or real-life settings.1 The practical implication of the “knowledge-to-action gap” for employers is to create innovative programs and policies to test in their own worksites and evaluate outcomes.

The need for balance between using evidence-based programs and innovation (especially the use of technology) is consistent with the view expressed by several organizations that issued a 2016 Joint Consensus Statement, including the American Heart Association, in response to wellness rules proposed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)2, which stated:

“In order for a wellness program design to be considered credible and effective, it must be informed by evidence of effectiveness. Program design must be guided by the most current level of scientific research available concerning best practices while also allowing space for employers to experiment or innovate with new strategies that support employee health and access to affordable health care, furthering our understanding of what works best.”3

decorative icon of a speech bubble with a star

The practical implications for employers is that they are encouraged to implement evidence-based programs where there is good evidence of effectiveness and to innovate and test new approaches where there are gaps in knowledge.

Footnotes

  1. Morris Z. S., Wooding S., & Grant J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510-520. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22179294 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/PMC3241518/
  2. Joint Consensus Statement. (2016). A Consensus Response to EEOC Proposed ADA and GINA Regulations on Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs, . Retrieved from https://herohealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A-Consensus-Response-to-EEOC-Proposed-Regulations-FINALr-02052016.pdf
  3. Joint Consensus Statement. (2016). A Consensus Response to EEOC Proposed ADA and GINA Regulations on Employer-Sponsored Wellness Programs, . Retrieved from https://herohealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A-Consensus-Response-to-EEOC-Proposed-Regulations-FINALr-02052016.pdf