Abstract
Citation
Oldenburg B, Sallis JF, Harris D, Owen N. Checklist of Health Promotion Environments at Worksites (CHEW): development and measurement characteristics. Am J Health Promot 2002 May-Jun;16(5):288-99.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Health promotion policy frameworks, recent theorizing, and research all emphasize understanding and mobilizing environmental influences to change particular health-related behaviors in specific settings. The workplace is a key environmental setting. The Checklist of Health Promotion Environments at Worksites (CHEW) was designed as a direct observation instrument to assess characteristics of worksite environments that are known to influence health-related behaviors. METHODS: The CHEW is a 112-item checklist of workplace environmental features hypothesized to be associated, both positively and negatively, with physical activity, healthy eating, alcohol consumption, and smoking. The three environmental domains assessed are (1) physical characteristics of the worksite, (2) features of the information environment, and (3) characteristics of the immediate neighborhood around the workplace. The conceptual rationale and development studies for the CHEW are described, and data from observational studies of 20 worksites are reported. RESULTS: The data on CHEW-derived environmental attributes showed generally good reliability and identified meaningful sets of variables that plausibly may influence health-related behaviors. With the exception of one information environment attribute, intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.80 to 1.00. Descriptive statistics on selected physical and information environment characteristics indicated that vending machines, showers, bulletin boards, and signs prohibiting smoking were common across worksites. Bicycle racks, visible stairways, and signs related to alcohol consumption, nutrition, and health promotion were relatively uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate the types of data on environmental attributes that can be derived, their relevance for program planning, and how they can characterize variability across worksites. The CHEW is a promising observational measure that has the potential to assess environmental influences on health behaviors and to evaluate workplace health promotion programs.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-16.5.288
At A Glance
Food Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Institution |
|---|---|
| 20 | Total Environments/Locations |
| 20 | Worksites |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Availability/Access | ✔ | ✘ |
| Food Quality | ✔ | ✘ |
| Labeling/Point of Purchase Info | ✔ | ✘ |
| Marketing/Advertising/Promotion | ✔ | ✘ |
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| - | Building |
| - | Neighborhood |
Domain(s)
Food Environment
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Environmental observation
Measure Availability
Measure included in article
Download measure from drjamessallis.sdsu.edu
Number of Items
112 Reported
Study location
New South Wales, Australia
20 worksites taking place in the National Workplace Health Project intervention trial
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
Nothing to add
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
Not applicable
Sex
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity
Not reported
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
No
Sample Size
Not Available
Study Design
Design Type
Validation/Reliability
Descriptive
Health Outcomes Assessed
None
Obesity Measures
Not applicable
BMI Measured or Self-reported
Not applicable
Covariates
Not reported
Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity
Not applicable
Data Reported on SES
Qualitative description
SES-related Variables
Not applicable
How To Use
Administration
Who Administered
Researcher-administered
How Administered
In-person
Time Required
median 35 minutes
Training Required
Yes, time not reported
Instructions on Use
Not reported
Data Analysis
Data Collection/Analysis Costs
Not available
Data Collection/Protocol
Not available
Instructions on Data Analysis
Not reported
Validity (0)
There are no validity tests reported for this measure.
Reliability (5)
| Type of reliability | Construct/subscale assessed | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inter-rater | Nutrition Signs | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 1.00 |
| Inter-rater | Vending Machine | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 1.00 |
| Inter-rater | Health Promotion Boards | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 1.00 |
| Inter-rater | Health Promotion Signs | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 0.80 |
| Inter-rater | Alcohol Signs | Intraclass correlation coefficient | 1.00 |