ward-b kplace - based m well-b - CANDIS PDF Service

DefenReferenDRDC-R

August 2

A rewwork

Allegra A.MadeleineHamid BoJoshua A.DRDC – T Anthony JCanada S Michael HPrivy Cou The body of standards. Hspecified on

ce Resence DocumRDDC-2020

2020

ward-bkplace

Loncar, BA e DʼAgata, Pholand, MEng . Granek, PhDToronto Rese

Jaz School of Pub

Haber, PhD ncil Office

this CAN UNCLAHowever, it must

the covering pag

earch anment 0-D081

CA

based mwell-b

hD

D arch Centre

lic Service

ASSIFIED documbe treated as CAge.

nd Deve

CAN U

AN UNCLAS

mobilebeing a

ment does not coAN UNCLASSIFI

lopment

UNCLASSIFIE

SIFIED

e approawaren

ontain the requireIED and protecte

t Canad

ED

oach toness an

ed security banned appropriately

a

o imprnd beh

ers according tobased on the ter

rove haviou

DND security rms and conditio

rs

ns

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

Template in use: EO Publishing App for SR-RD-EC Eng 2018-12-19_v1 (new disclaimer).dotm © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence), 2020

© Sa Majesté la Reine en droit du Canada (Ministère de la Défense nationale), 2020

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

IMPORTANT INFORMATIVE STATEMENTS

This document was reviewed for Controlled Goods by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) using the Schedule to the Defence Production Act.

Disclaimer: This publication was prepared by Defence Research and Development Canada an agency of the Department of National Defence. The information contained in this publication has been derived and determined through best practice and adherence to the highest standards of responsible conduct of scientific research. This information is intended for the use of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces (“Canada”) and Public Safety partners and, as permitted, may be shared with academia, industry, Canada’s allies, and the public (“Third Parties”). Any use by, or any reliance on or decisions made based on this publication by Third Parties, are done at their own risk and responsibility. Canada does not assume any liability for any damages or losses which may arise from any use of, or reliance on, the publication.

The data collected as part of this study was approved either by Defence Research and Development Canada’s Human Research Ethics Board or by the Director General Military Personnel Research & Analysis’ Social Science Research Review Board.

Endorsement statement: This publication has been published by the Editorial Office of Defence Research and Development Canada, an agency of the Department of National Defence of Canada. Inquiries can be sent to: [email protected].

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081 i

Abstract

Workplace well-being is associated with employee satisfaction and engagement with, and positive perceptions of one’s workplace and organizational culture (Grant et al., 2007). The development and implementation of effective workplace well-being interventions with long-term benefits is challenging. The current digital age allows for such interventions to leverage and exploit technological advances—a primary goal of the current research. Specifically, a pilot research project was conducted in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Government of Canada (GC) Entrepreneurs from the Deputy Ministers Task Force on Public Sector Innovation, with a goal of promoting GC employees’ workplace well-being. Using a longitudinal design, the pilot project leveraged a mobile application that offers reward-based incentivization to elicit positive behaviour change and improve workplace well-being across multiple GC departments. This Reference Document details the methodology, results, challenges, and recommendations for future work in this domain. In addition, this report provides an outline for mobile reward-based technological intervention on workplace well-being among GC employees for future interventions of this nature.

Significance to Defence and Security

The promotion of workplace well-being in civilian and military members is a priority for the Department of National Defence (DND) and the GC. This Reference Document provides a foundation for future interventions and recommendations for experimentation that leverage mobile applications in an effort to improve workplace well-being among GC employees.

ii DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

Résumé

Le bien-être sur le lieu de travail est associé à la satisfaction et à l’engagement des employés, ainsi qu’à perception positive du lieu de travail et de la culture organisationnelle d’un employé (Grant et al., 2007). L’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’interventions efficaces en matière de bien-être sur le lieu de travail, avec des avantages à long terme, constituent un défi. L’ère numérique actuelle permet à de telles interventions de tirer parti et d’exploiter les avancées technologiques — un des principaux objectifs de la recherche actuelle. Plus précisément, un projet de recherche pilote a été mené en collaboration avec RDDC et les entrepreneurs du gouvernement du Canada (GC) du Groupe de travail des sous-ministres sur l’innovation dans le secteur public, afin de promouvoir le bien-être des employés du GC en milieu de travail. À l’aide d’une étude longitudinale, le projet pilote a exploité une application mobile qui offre une incitation basée sur la récompense pour susciter un changement de comportement positif et améliorer le bien-être sur le lieu de travail dans plusieurs services du gouvernement. Ce document de référence détaille la méthodologie, les résultats, les défis et les recommandations pour les travaux futurs dans ce domaine. En outre, ce rapport donne les grandes lignes d’une intervention technologique mobile basée sur la récompense sur le bien-être au travail parmi les employés du GC pour les futures interventions de cette nature.

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité

La promotion du bien-être au travail des membres civils et militaires est une priorité pour le ministère de la Défense nationale et le gouvernement du Canada. Ce document de référence fournit une base pour les interventions futures et des recommandations pour l’expérimentation qui exploite les applications mobiles dans un effort pour améliorer le bien-être au travail parmi les employés du GC.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081 iii

Table of Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Significance to Defence and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Ethics Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4.1 Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.2 Offers 1 and 6: Workplace Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4.3 Offer 2: Interpersonal Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.4 Offer 3: Recognition and Reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.5 Offer 4: Work Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.6 Offer 5: Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4.7 Offer 7: User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 User Journey Through the Carrot Rewards App . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2 Adherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3 Offers 1 and 6: Workplace Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4 Offer 2: Interpersonal Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.5 Offer 3: Recognition and Reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6 Offer 4: Work Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.7 Offer 5: Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.8 Offer 7: User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.1 Limitations and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

iv DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

Annex A Offer Completion Breakdown by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Annex B Digital and Mobile Application Alternatives to be Considered in Future Research . . . 39

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081 v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Nudge presented on application homepage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2: Planned timeline of the offers and nudges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 3: Actual timeline of the offers and nudges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 4: User journey through the Carrot Rewards application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 5: Total offer completion rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 6: Proportion of link outs to external blog posts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 7: Count of daily offer completions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 8: Proportion of daily application adherence by department. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 9: Offers 1 and 6 response comparison of the item on negative perceptions of interactions with work colleagues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 10: Offers 1 and 6 response comparison of the item on positive perceptions of holding important discussions at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 11: Offers 1 and 6 response comparison of the item on positive perceptions of friendships at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 12: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of holding positive perceptions of their co-workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 13: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of co-workers inexperience making tasks more difficult. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 14: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of pleasant perception of co-workers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 15: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of disagreements being common in the workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 16: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement on the item “I receive useful feedback from my immediate supervisor on my job performance.” . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 17: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of receiving appropriate recognition for a job well done. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 18: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of too little rewards in their workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 19: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement of appropriateness of rewards based on employees’ effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 20: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “My immediate supervisor creates an environment where I feel free to discuss with him or her matters that affect my well-being.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

vi DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

Figure 21: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “I have support at work to balance my work and personal life.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 22: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “In my work unit, individuals behave in a respectful manner.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 23: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “I am satisfied with how interpersonal issues are resolved in my work unit.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 24: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “Overall, my department or agency treats me with respect.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 25: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “In my work unit, every individual is accepted as an equal member of the team.” . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 26: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “Overall, I feel valued at work.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 27: Percentage of participants’ agreement-disagreement to the item “Overall, to what extent to issues with your co-workers cause you stress at work?” . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 28: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “My Department.” . . . . . . 25

Figure 29: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “How did you hear about the pilot?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 30: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “What factor(s) motivated you to join the pilot (select all that apply)?” by department. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 31: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “What are the main motivating factors for you to continue using the app?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 32: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “What are the main motivating factors for you to continue using the app?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 33: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “Did you like the blogs?” . . . 28

Figure 34: Offer 7 proportions of participants’ response to item “After seeing the nudge, which of the following behaviours did you engage in?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081 vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Rates of completion across offers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2: Nudges presented over the course of the pilot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3: Comparison of blog post reads versus views on medium.com. . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Table 4: Overview of study limitations and recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table A.1: Offer completion by department (numerical values). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table A.2: Offer completion and non-completion percentages (by department). . . . . . . . . 38

Table B.1: Alternative mobile and digital applications for consideration. . . . . . . . . . . . 39

viii DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Assistant Deputy Minister (Science & Technology) at the Department of National Defence for providing funding and resources for the study. The authors would also like to thank the Innovation and Impact Unit at the Privy Council Office, in particular Chad Hartnell, Saskia Jarvis, Valerie Anglehart, Elizabeth Hardy, and Victoria McLean for their time and guidance. The contributions of the following individuals are greatly appreciated: Brian Jones, Adrian Senn, Dr. Elizabeth Girolami, Lisa Norman, Dr. Jessica Ward-King, Dr. Amanda Desnoyers, Alyssa Whalen, Monica Dube, Amy Hamilton, Jennifer Lafortune, Heni Nadel, Anatole Papadopoulos, AnnMarie Schreiner, Betty Chan, Jesper Christiansen, Elena Oyon, and Marco Steinberg. Also greatly appreciated were the contributions of the Deputy Ministers Task Force on Public Sector Innovation, Government of Canada Entrepreneurs, States of Change, and the Carrot Rewards team for their ongoing support and contribution to this project. Finally, the authors would also like to thank Statistics Canada for conducting data analysis.

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081 1

1 Introduction

Various North American organizations prioritize workplace well-being and seek to enhance employees’ workplace experience and functioning (Ivey et al., 2018). The psychological (i.e., subjective experience), physical (i.e., health), and social (i.e., workplace relationships) well-being of Government of Canada (GC) employees contributes to effectiveness and productivity at both the individual and organizational levels (Grant et al., 2007; Ivey et al., 2018). As Canada’s largest employer and in keeping with the Canadian Standards Association, the GC continues to improve upon wellness initiatives for its workforce of 262,000 employees (CSA Group / BNQ, 2013). In a mental health progress report, the former Clerk of the Privy Council stressed the priority of addressing mental health in the workplace (Wernick, 2019, paragraph 2). He stated that, “following the launch of [the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy] more than ninety deputy ministers signed a pledge to support mental health in the workplace with the goal of creating a culture that enshrines psychological health, safety and well-being in all aspects of the workplace through collaboration, inclusivity and respect.” (Wernick, 2019, paragraph 4). These efforts have been upheld across all levels and departments within government, seeking to find answers as to how to improve and evaluate the well-being of GC employees. One metric the GC employs annually to assess workplace well-being in the GC, which provides a cross-sectional assessment, is the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2020).

In line with Canada’s 2017 Defence Policy, the development of programs that improve the physical and mental health of military personnel and public servants is a top priority among researchers at the Department of National Defence (DND; National Defence, 2017). Moreover, DND conducts ongoing research to discern which initiatives will be successful in improving workplace well-being (e.g., Ivey et al., 2018; Suurd Ralph et al., 2019). In an evolving technological landscape, the usability of newly developed digital and mobile applications embodies an emerging methodology through which these systems can be studied, adapted, and applied in an impactful way. Indeed, research suggests some advantages to relying on technological approaches to promoting mental health and well-being, such as improving awareness of depressive symptoms, and reducing stress-related symptoms and excessive sitting in the workplace (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Research supports the utility of web-based and mobile applications as a tool to facilitate an employee’s positive mental and physical health outcomes. However, such an approach is not without its challenges, such as privacy concerns, geographic and generational differences among users, adherence, a lack of application or program personalization, as well as time commitment (Chung et al., 2017; Connolly et al., 2018; Cook et al., 2007; Donkin et al., 2011; Korte et al., 2018).

1.1 Current Research

This study aimed to assess the utility of points based incentivization in driving positive behaviour change among public servants and military members to encourage healthy workplace relationships and well-being. More specifically, the current study aimed to assess the influence of “nudges” (i.e., notifications) in ameliorating and encouraging positive workplace well-being and workplace relationships using the mobile application, Carrot Rewards. Carrot Rewards incentivized users to complete short surveys or daily step goals with a rewards-based points system; points were accumulated and then redeemable at various consumer companies (i.e., Scene Points, Aeroplan Miles, RBC Rewards,

2 DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

Petro Points, etc.). Carrot Rewards1 was a social marketing organization that distributed a large-scale social reward approach to influence behaviour change with the aim of improving Canadians’ well-being. The company has worked with governments in British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland as well as Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada to increase residents’ physical activity, and investigate energy efficiency, indoor air quality, and opioid research, respectively.

The current study had four major objectives:

1. To distribute a partially customizable application for GC employees;

2. To increase recognition and efforts toward improving workplace well-being through positive behavioural change;

3. To gather and analyze relevant data and report on the findings; and

4. To generate and advise policy and program measures related to well-being in and across GC departments.

The objective of this paper is to outline the findings from the pilot and is intended to act as a guide to inform future research and interventions in this domain. The results from this study aim to provide insight into the future state of research that leverages digitally-delivered workplace well-being initiatives through their utility, influence, and effectiveness in using a rewards-based approach to behaviour change in military and civilian settings. Although the current study employed a large sample size, it was intended as a pilot study; our discussion of the design and methodological approach includes gaps that existed, as well as actionable insights to be drawn and future directions in this field of study. This pilot is recommended as a precedent and foundation upon which future researchers may pursue similar explorations; be it in invoking scientific grounding, ethical standards, or top-down impact for digitally-delivered well-being programs in the federal organizational sphere.

1 The company went out of business after the data collection was completed.


2 Method

The mobile application, Carrot Rewards was chosen as it had already been used by the Canadian public in several provinces. The application incentivized better health practices by giving users rewards for achieving a daily step count and gathered survey information to educate on certain topics. For the purposes of this study, the application combined both features and distributed short surveys (herein known as “offers”) while tracking the users’ daily step achievements.

2.1 Ethics Review

The current project was approved by Defence Research and Development Canada’s Human Research Ethics Committee. All project team members completed a tutorial on the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS). Future studies should consider the implication of participant inclusion across multiple GC departments, specifically the potential length of review processes by multiple Ethical Review Boards, respectively.

2.2 Participants

A total of 1470 participation codes were redeemed.2 The study included a total of 1388 code redemptions after the removal of the control group (n = 82) from the analyses. Randomization failure occurred while participants were being randomly assigned into the experimental (i.e., those that received nudges) and control (i.e., those that did not receive nudges) conditions. Specifically, randomization did not occur at the individual level, rather each available code was either associated with the experimental or control condition. However, limited enrollment occurred using codes that were associated with the control condition. Consequently, the control group had to be removed from the dataset. Thus, analyses were only carried out on participants who received nudges, thereby removing the ability to compare between conditions and limiting our capacity to evaluate whether behavioural change occurred during the pilot. Participants were employees from five GC departments (DND, Transport Canada, Health Canada, Statistics Canada, and Canada School of Public Service). The sample is a convenience sample, thus, we cannot generalize our results to specific departments or employees of the GC.

Of the participants who completed demographic items at the start of the study, 62% were female, 36% were male, and 2% indicated “other” and 80% of participants indicated a role as a public servant and 20% as military personnel. Due to the researchers’ limited access to the data file and the depletion in completion rates across offers (see Table 1); these demographics cannot be generalized to all participants.3 Given these restrictions, we are unable to report on the demographic proportions of those that completed each offer and therefore cannot speak to the factors that may have impacted the reduced completion rates. To ensure there were no differences between participants who completed the study and those who dropped out, differences between the Needs for Relatedness subscale, which was presented in the first and sixth offers, were tested for significance. There were no statistically significant differences within offers for the factors of gender, age, or department.

2 The researchers created a specialized code to be inputted into the application in order to indicate that a user was participating in the study. Participants were required to (a) download the application, (b) input profile information and (c) input the study code in order to be counted. 3 See Annex A for the completions by department.


Table 1: Rates of completion across offers.

Total Codes Redeemed

Offer 1 Offer 2 Offer 3 Offer 4 Offer 5 Offer 6 Offer 7

1470 1159 959 889 848 807 701 484

A short timeframe limited the team’s ability to pre-test the Carrot Rewards application. However, the researchers used a small focus group (n = 7) at Defence Research and Development Canada – Toronto Research Centre to assess the experience of users’ on-boarding with the Carrot Rewards application and to obtain feedback on potential nudges to be used in the study.4

To recruit participants for the study, GC employees were emailed directly within their department. The email included a link to a video introducing the project and a link to the GCpedia page with additional information. The team had a short timeframe to market and recruit participants which led to lower sign-up and participation rates. Due to the low participation rates after the initial launch of the four recruitment emails, recruitment efforts were expanded to include departmental internal communications, presentations to specific groups within the departments, outreach through the Federal Workplace Well-Being Network, and Twitter. Marketing for the study was facilitated through outreach within the research team’s departmental networks. Although demographics were collected on age, gender, and status as military or civilian personnel, these results were not reported due to the researchers’ inability to access the data file. Specifically, due to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), which governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data by private sector organizations (Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2019), Carrot Rewards could not share their data file directly with DRDC. Under this Act, Carrot Rewards provided anonymized data for the project to Statistics Canada to be analyzed. In order to receive the incentivized consumer points, users were also required to input a reward card.5

2.3 Design

Once participants had downloaded the Carrot Rewards application, they were prompted to enter the study’s bonus code. Two bonus codes were created; one code had the participants receiving offers with the addition of a nudge (or notification) that promotes positive workplace relationships, while the other code had participants receiving offers with no nudges. Nudges were sent out with a title relating to the topic of the offers to ensure consistency throughout the study; the nudge messages included a prompt, see Table 2 and Figure 1, designed to encourage positive behavioural change within the workplace.

4 See Boland et al., 2019 for details. 5 The users’ name and email address are stored separately than their offer responses in order to avoid any potential for identifiability. The inclusion of age, gender, and postal code are a sign-up requirement of the Carrot Rewards application and cannot be accessed by the research team. The application stores all data in Canada, as per Canadian Privacy Law (under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act).

DRDC-RD

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Participanmonths. O

6 Figure tak

DDC-2020-D0

Nu

How was yo

Difference o

Ditch the em

Make an effnew

Be present

Take a coffe

Show someo

nts also receivOffers in the a

ken from Bolan

081

Table 2: N

udge Title

our weekend?

of opinion

mail

fort with some

ee break

one you care

Figure 1:

ved a total of application ref

nd et al., 2019.

Nudges presen

? Ask ysurpr

Challpeer’

Somedelive

eone Commvery w

If youat it d

Don’tGrab

Write

Nudge presen

seven “offersfer to short, a

. Image Copyri

nted over the

your co-workised how muc

lenge yoursels opinion, eve

e things are eaer the messag

mit to gettingwell this wee

u don’t need iduring your m

t miss out on a coffee with

e a kind and s

nted on appli

s” (i.e., short spplication-ba

ight 2019 by C

course of the

Nudge Me

kers about theich you learn a

f to acknowleen if you disa

asier said thange in person.

g to know 1 coek.

it, keep your pmeetings this w

a relaxing anh a work colle

supportive not

ication homep

surveys) presased learning

Carrot Insights,

e pilot.

essage

ir weekend—about them.

edge and recoagree.

n typed. Walk

o-worker you

phone on sileweek.

nd enjoyable ceague.

te or email to

page.6

sented over apexercises and

used with perm

—you’ll be

ognize a

k over and

u don’t know

ent/don’t look

coffee break!

o a peer.

pproximatelyd surveys that

mission.

5

k

three t have

6

redeemablawarenessdesigned fin-applica

Offework

Rew

Rew

Offework

Five workconvrelat

Offeinter

OffeRew

Figure 2 sRegrettablsynchroniwere presactual tim

7 Adapted f

le points assos and undersfor the resear

ation elements

er 1: One basekplace;

wards for daily

wards for Step

er 2 to 5: Fouk stress, and r

blog posts ok; (2) Exploversations: Boionships: Con

er 6: A follorpersonal relat

er 7: A survewards app.

shows the plly, due to lowzed offer andented with al

meline of the o

from Boland et

ociated with cstanding of wrchers to obtas:

eline survey t

y step goal ach

Together Ch

ur short surverespect in the

on the followoring the “laoost your sknnection and

ow-up surveytionships in th

ey (that part

anned timelinw initial particd nudge delivll of the offer

offers’ and nu

Figure 2:

t al., 2019.

completing thworkplace weain feedback o

to assess curre

hievement;

hallenges enco

eys related toworkplace;

wing topic areanguages” o

kills to reducecloseness to w

y to measurehe workplace

ticipants link

ne of the studcipation rates,very was not prs and nudgesdges’ delivery

: Planned tim

hem. The firstell-being amon user exper

ent perceived

ouraging com

o interperson

eas: (1) The of appreciatioe stress; (4) work colleagu

e change (fre throughout t

ed out to) to

dy for partici, some participossible acros at some inty.

eline of the of

t six offers wemong GC emp

rience. The fo

d quality of in

mpetition amon

nal communic

importance oon and recoRespect in t

ues;

rom baselinethe study; and

o assess user

ipants who reipants began

oss all participterval. For co

offers and nud

DRDC-

ere designed mployees, andfollowing is a

nterpersonal r

ng participant

cation, reward

of forging reognition; (3) the workplac

) in the perd

r experience

eceived the nthe study aftepants, howev

omparison, Fi

dges.7

RDDC-2020-

to build the ud offer sevena list of the stu

relationships i

ts;

d and recogn

eal relationshiHaving dif

ce; and (5) O

rceived quali

using the C

nudges and oer others, therver, all particiigure 3 depic

-D081

user’s n was tudy’s

in the

nition,

ips at fficult Office

ity of

Carrot

offers. refore ipants ts the

DRDC-RD

As mentiooffers. Horates withanalyses.

In order toto a blog pStudy paroffers fiveScene Poi

2.4

Some que(Treasury measures French. Th

2.4.1

DemograpThis inforwell as tdemograp

2.4.2

The only assessed aof the Wothe degree

DDC-2020-D0

oned, the nudowever, due tin certain GC

o encourage lpost on mediurtners within e and six wernts for follow

Measures

estions includBoard of Can(Van den Brhe materials f

Demogra

phic informatrmation was cto inform rephics of GC em

Offers 1 a

repeated meat the start anork-Related Be to which par

081

Figure 3

dges were supto the study’sC departments

earning regarum.com. Blogthe project te

re incentivizewing the exter

s

ded in the ofnada Secretarroeck et al., for the pilot s

aphic Char

ion was collecollected in orcommendatiomployees.

and 6: Wor

easure was td end of the sasic Need Satrticipants perc

3: Actual time

pposed to bes limited times, participants

rding workplag posts were weam were the

ed by rewardirnal link to me

ffer were devriat, 2020); ho2010; Spectotudy were tra

racteristics

ected on gendrder to assess ons for futur

rkplace Re

the measure study (Offer tisfaction Scaceive feeling

eline of the off

e presented toeline, randoms who did not

ace well-beingwritten to ince creators of ing the particedium.com).

veloped by Cowever, someor, 1985). Thanslated into F

s

er, age, and sif there were

re studies ba

elationship

assessing w1 and Offer 6ale (Van den Bconnected to

ffers and nudg

o half of the mization failur

t receive the n

g, offers two clude contentf the blog poscipant for foll

arrot and some of the quest

he applicationFrench.

status as militae any significaased on the

ps

workplace rel6), using the NBroeck et al., others in the

ges.

participants, re, and low innudges were

to six includrelated to thests. Blogs linlowing the li

me were taketions were takn was availab

ary personnelant difference

user experi

lationships. TNeeds for Re, 2010). This

e workplace.

in addition tnitial participremoved from

ed an externae topic of the nked at the enk (e.g., rece

en from the Pken from valible in English

l or public seres across grouience of diff

This measureelatedness subsubscale eval

7

to the pation m the

al link offer. nd of

eiving

PSES idated h and

rvant. ups as ferent

e was bscale luates


2.4.3 Offer 2: Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal relationships at work were measured using the co-workers subscale of the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985). This subscale assesses the degree to which participants perceive satisfaction in their relationships with co-workers.

2.4.4 Offer 3: Recognition and Reward

Four items from the Contingent Reward subscale of the Job Satisfaction Survey were used to assess recognition and reward (Spector, 1985). The subscale measures the degree to which participants perceive recognition and the availability of rewards within their workplace. A question from the PSES: “I receive useful feedback from my immediate supervisor on my job performance,” was also included in the offer (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2020).

2.4.5 Offer 4: Work Stress

Four items from the PSES were incorporated to measure work stress. The four items were: “My immediate supervisor creates an environment where I feel free to discuss with him or her matters that affect my well-being at work”; “I have support at work to balance my work and personal life”; “In my work unit, people behave in a respectful manner”; and “I am satisfied with how interpersonal issues are resolved in my work unit” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2020).

2.4.6 Offer 5: Respect

The PSES questions that were used to assess respect were: “Overall, my department or agency treats me with respect”; “In my work unit, every individual is accepted as an equal member of the team”; “Overall, to what extent do issues with your co-workers cause you stress at work”; and “Overall, I feel valued at work” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2020).

2.4.7 Offer 7: User Experience

Overall user experience of the Carrot Rewards application was assessed by a series of questions that were presented in the final offer, through a link out to an external survey. Items included in the user experience survey were designed by the researchers of this pilot.

2.5 User Journey Through the Carrot Rewards App

Figure 4 displays the user journey through the Carrot Rewards application, from the initial on-boarding phase continuing through the process of completing the first offer.

DRDC-RD

8 Taken fro

DDC-2020-D0

Fig

om Boland et a

081

gure 4: User j

al., 2019.

journey throu

ugh the Carroot Rewards appplication.8

9

10

3 R

As discusour samplthe occurrhigh initiain complepassing of

As previoubrought thlevel, theparticipan

Results

sed, given thale; instead ourence of low al rate of cometion rates ovffer, shown in

usly mentionhem out of off impact of

nts linked out

at our sampleur results shou

uptake rates mpletion. The ver time, thusn Figure 5 (se

Fig

ed, rewards wffers 5 and 6 tincentivizingto the blogs (

e was a conveuld be interprin the currenCarrot Rewar, as expectede Annex A fo

igure 5: Total

were only proo blog posts o

g an action. (see Figure 6)

enience sampreted only as nt study, of thrds applicatiod, we observeor a breakdow

l offer comple

ovided to partion medium.coWhen a rew

).

ple our resultsa representatihe participanton previously ed a decliningwn by departm

etion rates.

icipants who om. This wasward was of

DRDC-

s cannot be gion of our pats that did sigexperienced

g rate of comment).

clicked on ans done to asseffered, a high

RDDC-2020-

generalized bearticipants. Degn up, there wa downward

mpletion with

n external linkess, at a descriher proportio

-D081

eyond espite was a trend

h each

k that iptive on of

DRDC-RD

The blogsand read eof the po(i.e., instato a blog.

Tot

Tot

Per

3.1

As expectaverage nnon-compefficacy ousage is n(Davies eparticipatiamount of

DDC-2020-D0

s were postedeach blog. Taost and remances where u

Table

B

tal views on m

tal reads on m

rcentage of bl

Participa

ted, participanon-completiopletions by ofof mobile heanot often rept al., 2012; Mion non-compf completions

081

Figure 6: P

d on medium.able 3 shows tined on the

users opened t

e 3: Compari

Blog Traffic

medium.com

medium.com

log reads on M

ation

ation rates weon rate of 3ffer). This waalth applicatioorted in such

Maher et al., pletion to bes for each offe

Proportion of

com, and wethe number opage for the

the webpage

ison of blog p

Medium.com

ere highest a35.2% acrossas in line witons (e.g., Schh research de2014). Of st approximateer over the co

f link outs to e

could accessf reads (i.e., ie indicated lfor the post)

post reads vers

Blog 1

135

39

29%

at the start os offers 1 toth longitudinhoeppe et al.,espite the scietudies that reely 17% (Schurse of the stu

external blog

s data on the instances whelength of timfrom the par

rsus views on

Blog 2 B

116 1

18 2

16% 1

f the study ao 6 (see Annal research in, 2016). Reseentific intereseport applicathoeppe et al.tudy.

g posts.

number of pere users scro

me needed torticipants that

medium.com

Blog 3 Blog

50 892

25 348

7% 39%

and decreasednnex A for n the systemearch indicatest in the apption engagem., 2016). Figu

eople who violled to the boo read) and vt clicked a lin

.

g 4 Blog 5

543

199

% 37%

d over time the proportio

matic review oes that applic

plications’ effment, results ure 7 present

11

iewed ottom views

nk-out

at an on of of the cation ficacy show ts the

12

3.2 A

The Carrooffer. Figuusers whoamong pawere highbeginning

Adherenc

ot Rewards apure 8 shows tho opened the articipants frohest among pag of April.

Figu

ce

pplication enhe participantapplication

m DND; howarticipants fro

ure 7: Count o

nabled participt rates of adheach day; du

wever, this coom DND. Ove

of daily offer

pants to checerence with thuring the durould be due toerall, adheren

completions.

ck their dailyhe applicationration of the o the fact thatnce began to p

DRDC-

y step count an, specificallystudy. Adhert participationplateau in the

RDDC-2020-

and completey the proportirence was hin rates, in gen end of Marc

-D081

e each ion of ighest neral, h and

DRDC-RD

3.3 O

As previoSatisfactioend (i.e., GC emploparticipanthey couldthe particithese scordecrease ito comparbe a result

DDC-2020-D0

Figu

Offers 1 a

ously mentioon Scale (VanOffer 1 [n =

oyees held a nts reported ned engage in mipants reporteres did not inin scores. Howre to, and (b) t of a regressi

081

ure 8: Propor

and 6: W

ned, the Nen den Broeck= 1159] andgenerally po

egative percemeaningful dised having closncrease from twever, this debecause partiion to the mea

rtion of daily

orkplace

eds for Relak et al., 2010d Offer 6 [n ositive perceptions of intescussions at wse friends in tthe beginningecrease is dificipants generan.

application a

Relation

atedness subs) was measur= 701]). Ini

eption of theeracting with work (see Figthe workplaceg to the end officult to interrally started o

adherence by

nships

scale from tred at the begitial responseir workplacecolleagues (s

gure 10). Adde (see Figure of the study; rpret because out with high

department.

the Work-Reginning of th

es from Offee, such that see Figure 9) ditionally, app

11). Contraryinstead there (a) there wascores, this p

elated Basic he study and ar 1 indicatedless than 20and perceived

proximately hy to our predie was a signifs no control g

pattern may si

13

Need at the d that 0% of d that

half of ction, ficant group imply

14

Figu

Figur

ure 9: Offers 1percept

re 10: Offers perception

1 and 6 respotions of intera

1 and 6 respons of holding

onse comparisactions with w

onse compariimportant dis

son of the itemwork colleagu

ison of the itescussions at w

DRDC-

m on negativeues.

em on positivework.

RDDC-2020-

e

e

-D081

DRDC-RD

Figure 11

3.4 O

Offer 2 (nSatisfactiopositive p

DDC-2020-D0

1: Offers 1 an

Offer 2: I

n = 959) examon Survey (Serceptions of

Fi

081

nd 6 response

nterperso

mined interpeSpector, 198f their co-work

igure 12: Perof holdin

comparison o

onal Com

ersonal relatio5).The majorkers (see Figu

rcentage of pang positive pe

of the item on

mmunicat

onships at wority of particure 12).

articipants’ agerceptions of t

n positive perc

tion

ork using the cipants (87.6

greement-distheir co-work

ceptions of fr

co-workers s69%) indicate

sagreement kers.

riendships at w

subscale of thed that they

15

work.

he Job held

16

As preseninexperien

Most parti

Figure 1

nted in Figurence makes tas

Fi

icipants (79.7

14: Percentag

e 13, more thsks more diffi

igure 13: Perof co-work

78%) endorse

ge of particip

han half of thicult.

rcentage of pakers inexperie

d positive per

ants’ agreem

e respondents

articipants’ agence making t

rceptions of th

ment-disagreem

s (55.79%) d

greement-distasks more diff

heir co-worke

ment of pleas

DRDC-

disagreed that

sagreement fficult.

ers (see Figur

sant perceptio

RDDC-2020-

t their co-wor

re 14).

on of co-work

-D081

rkers’

kers.

DRDC-RD

Over two common i

3.5 O

Offer 3 (nthree itemexamine two-thirdssupervisor

DDC-2020-D0

thirds of parin their workp

Fi

Offer 3: R

n = 889) inclms from the GC employes (65.92%) or (see Figure

081

rticipants’ resplace (see Fig

igure 15: Perof disag

Recogniti

luded one itemContingent R

ees’ perceptioof participant16).

sponses (68.2gure 15).

rcentage of pagreements bein

ion and R

m from the PReward subscons of recogts indicated

20%) indicate

articipants’ agng common in

Reward

PSES (Treasucale of the Jgnition and rthat they rec

ed that they

greement-disn the workpla

ury Board of Job Satisfactirewards in tceive useful

felt that disa

sagreement ace.

Canada Secrion Survey (the workplac

feedback fro

agreements ar

retariat, 2020(Spector, 198ce. Approximom an imme

17

re not

0) and 85) to mately ediate

18

F

Although workplace

More thanFigure 18)

Figure 16: P useful

most particie, about one-t

Fig

n half of pa).

ercentage of pl feedback fro

ipants indicatthird (32.28%

gure 17: Percreceiving

articipants (5

participants’om my immed

ted that they%) did not (see

entage of parappropriate r

54.33%) perc

agreement-ddiate superviso

y felt that thee Figure 17).

rticipants’ agrrecognition fo

ceived that th

disagreement or on my job p

ey received

greement-disagfor a job well d

heir workpla

DRDC-

on the item “performance

appropriate r

agreement of done.

ace has too

RDDC-2020-

“I receive .”

recognition i

few rewards

-D081

in the

s (see

DRDC-RD

Figure 1

As demonappropriat

DDC-2020-D0

8: Percentage

nstrated in Fiteness of rewa

Fi

081

e of participa

gure 19, nearards for empl

igure 19: Perof appropria

ants’ agreeme

rly half of paloyees’ effort

rcentage of paateness of rew

ent-disagreem

articipants diss.

articipants’ agwards based o

ment of too litt

sagreed to so

greement-dison employees

tle rewards in

ome degree (4

sagreement ’ effort.

n their workp

48.94%) abou

19

lace.

ut the

20

3.6 O

Offer 4 (nCanada Screates an

Figure 2creates a

Over halfbalance; h

Offer 4: W

n = 848) was cecretariat, 20

n environment

20: Percentagan environme

f (56.68%) ofhowever over

Work Stre

created to me020). Almost t that allows f

ge of participaent where I fe

f participantsone-quarter (

ess

easure work sthree-quarter

for discussion

ants’ agreemeeel free to disc

s agreed that (26.52%) stro

stress using fors (72.17%)

ns of well-bein

ent-disagreemcuss with him

they receiveongly disagree

our items fromof respondenng (see Figur

ment to the item or her matte

e support to ed (see Figure

DRDC-

m the PSES (nts agreed thare 20).

em “My immeers that affect

achieve a sue 21).

RDDC-2020-

(Treasury Boaat their super

ediate supervmy well-bein

uccessful wor

-D081

ard of rvisor

visor ng.”

rk-life

DRDC-RD

A large pr

Over half work; how

DDC-2020-D0

Figure “I

roportion (80.

Figure “

(60.49%) of wever, approx

081

21: PercentagI have suppor

.89%) agreed

22: Percentag“In my work u

respondents ximately one-t

ge of participrt at work to b

that coworke

ge of participunit, individua

agreed that inthird (22.53%

pants’ agreembalance my w

ers behave res

pants’ agreemals behave in

nterpersonal i%) were neutra

ment-disagreework and pers

spectfully at w

ment-disagreea respectful m

issues are resoal (see Figure

ement to the itonal life.”

work (see Fig

ement to the itmanner.”

olved in an ae 23).

tem

gure 22).

tem

adequate mann

21

ner at

22

3.7 O

Offer 5 (nSecretariatheir work

Figure “I am sa

Offer 5: R

n = 807) incat, 2020). Thrkplace (see Fi

Figurite

23: Percentagatisfied with h

Respect

luded four itree-quarters (7igure 24).

re 24: Percenem “Overall, m

ge of participhow interpers

tems from the74.97%) of p

ntage of particmy departmen

pants’ agreemsonal issues a

e PSES to mparticipants pe

cipants’ agrent or agency t

ment-disagreeare resolved in

measure respeerceived that

eement-disagrtreats me with

DRDC-

ement to the itn my work un

ect (Treasury they are trea

reement to theh respect.”

RDDC-2020-

tem nit.”

Board of Caated respectfu

e

-D081

anada ully in

DRDC-RD

Over half (see Figur

Almost thFigure 26)

DDC-2020-D0

(68.15%) of re 25).

Figure 25: work u

hree-quarters ).

Fi

081

respondents a

Percentage ounit, every ind

(70.50%) of

igure 26: Perto the

agreed that in

of participantsdividual is acc

f respondents

rcentage of pae item “Overa

ndividuals are

s’ agreement-cepted as an

indicated tha

articipants’ agall, I feel valu

e treated equa

-disagreemenequal membe

at they feel v

greement-disued at work.”

ally accepted

nt to the item er of the team

valued in the

sagreement ”

in their work

“In my .”

eir workplace

23

kplace

e (see

24

Most (83.which (42

3.8 O

As mentioCarrot RepercentageFigure 28)departmenpositive. Approximbased on t

9 These res

02%) particip2.18%) perceiv

Figure 27: P to wha

Offer 7: U

oned, Offer 7ewards applies by depart); however, wnt. The majoMost partic

mately three-qthe amount of

sults were prese

pants indicateved stress at l

Percentage of at extent to iss

User Expe

consisted ofication and tment must

when possibleority of particcipants (94.1quarters (73.5f time needed

ented to the sta

ed having exleast “to a lar

f participantssues with you

erience

f a link-out tothe study ovbe interprete

e, percentagescipants (83.514%) reporte0%) found th

d to complete

akeholders in a

xperienced strrge extent” (s

’ agreement-dur co-workers

o a survey to verall. Resuled with cauts were calcula3%) reporteded little difhat the quantioffers.

a Scientific Let

ress at work ee Figure 27)

disagreement s cause you st

assess particilts describedtion given ouated based ond their overafficulty durinity of reward

tter (Loncar et

DRDC-

because of c).

t to the item “tress at work?

ipants’ user ed in this secur unequal s

n the number all experienceng the on-bpoints was s

al., 2020).

RDDC-2020-

o-workers, h

“Overall, ?”

experience9 oction that prsample sizesof responden

e of the pilotboarding prosufficient ince

-D081

alf of

of the resent s (see nts per t was ocess. entive

DRDC-RD

Figure 29 Almost hadepartmenfrom with

Figure 2

The majo(44.44%) Statistics C

DDC-2020-D0

Figure 28:

shows particalf of particint.” Of the pa

hin the app.

29: Offer 7 pr

ority of particheard about tCanada heard

081

Offer 7 propo

cipants’ referripants (42.77articipants tha

roportions of

cipants fromthe study fromd about the st

ortions of par

ral source (n =%) heard ab

at selected “O

f participants

m DND (44.4m “A broadcatudy through

rticipants’ resp

= 457) when bout the pilotOther,” half in

’ response to

49%), Health ast message in“An email fro

sponse to item

asked “How t from “A brndicated that

item “How d

Canada (51n [their] depaom senior ma

m “My Depart

did you hearroadcast mesthey had hea

did you hear a

1.77%), and artment.” Moanagement” (3

tment.”

r about the pissage from [tard about the

about the pilo

Transport Cast employees37.50%) or “F

25

ilot?” [their] study

ot?”

anada from From

26

[their] depSchool of

ParticipanThe three Rewards” rewards p

Reported motivatingthey “Alreapproximaachieving 14.71% se(c) “Gettin

Figure 31 the applicrewards p(16.97%),

partment’s wf Public Servic

nts (n = 449) wmost commo(17.94%), (

points for com

motivations fg factor repoeady use Carately one-fift

daily step gelected (a) “Ang rewards po

Figure 30motiv

displays the cation. The thpoints for co, and (c) “Not

well-being or wce heard abou

were asked “on responses (b) “Getting

mpleting offers

for participatiorted by partirrot Rewards.th of participgoals.” More Already use oints for comp

0: Offer 7 propvated you to j

proportion ofhree most comompleting offetification that

wellness netwut the study fr

What factor(swere that parpoints for a

s” (14.73%).

ing in the piloicipants from” Within Tra

pants indicatevariation wa

Carrot Rewapleting offers

portions of pajoin the pilot (

f participants’mmon factorsfers” (30.97%t there was a

work” (37.50%rom “Social m

s) motivated yrticipants werchieving dail

ot varied acroDND (19.01

ansport Canaded that their as seen for p

ards,” (b) “Bes.”

articipants’ re(select all tha

’ (n = 436) res for continue

%), (b) “Chenew offer” (1

%). The majomedia” (33.33

you to join thre motivated ly step goals

ss departmen1%) and Heada (18.35%) a

main motivparticipants feing a part o

esponse to iteat apply)?” by

eported motived use of the

ecking your s16.01%).

DRDC-

rity of emplo3%).

he pilot (selecby (a) “Alreas” (17.23%),

nts (see Figurealth Canada (and Statistics

vation was “Gfrom Canada of a governm

em “What facy department.

vational factore application step count fo

RDDC-2020-

oyees from Ca

ct all that appady [using] C

and (c) “Ge

e 30). The pri(19.36%) wass Canada (23.Getting point

School suchment initiative

ctor(s) .

rs for adherenwere (a) “Ge

or reward po

-D081

anada

ply)?” Carrot etting

imary s that 08%) ts for h that e,” or

nce to etting oints”

DRDC-RD

The propoapplicatioreward po(83.68%) emerged w

DDC-2020-D0

Figure th

ortions by dn over the thoints gave enconsidered t

when examini

081

31: Offer 7 phe main motiv

epartment inhree month pnough incentthe rewards aing this item a

proportions ofvating factors

n Figure 32 speriod (n = 4ive to complas sufficient across departm

f participantsfor you to co

show reporte436). Additiolete the offersincentive to ments.

’ response to ontinue using

ed motivationonally, when rs?” (n = 435

participate i

item “What athe app?”

ns for adhereasked “Did

5) the majorin the study.

are

ence to usinyou find tha

rity of particiA similar pa

27

g the at the ipants attern

28

Figure 33

Fi

Figure th

summarizes p

igure 33: Offe

32: Offer 7 phe main motiv

participants’

fer 7 proportio

proportions ofvating factors

(n = 435) atti

ons of particip

f participantsfor you to co

itudes toward

pants’ respon

’ response to ontinue using

ds the blog po

nse to item “D

DRDC-

item “What athe app?”

sts.

Did you like th

RDDC-2020-

are

he blogs?”

-D081

DRDC-RD

Figure 34 presented (a) “[Walktheir] co-(16.32%).

DDC-2020-D0

displays the pin the nudg

king] over to workers abou

Figure 3the

081

proportion ofges. The thredeliver a mes

ut their week

4: Offer 7 proe nudge, which

f participants ee most comssage in pers

kend” (18.91%

oportions of ph of the follow

(n = 225) whmmon behavio

on rather tha%); and (c) “

participants’wing behavio

ho reported enours that thean sending an“[Taking] a c

response to iours did you e

ngaging in beey reported en email” (22.5coffee break

tem “After seengage in?”

haviours thatengaging in 54%); (b) “[Awith a collea

eeing

29

t were were:

Asking ague”


4 Discussion

The current pilot study offers insight into the potential advantages of leveraging a customized mobile application to gather longitudinal data and promote workplace well-being. The findings discussed in this Reference Document present an example by which to gather and assess relevant data of this nature. Our participants generally held a positive level of workplace relatedness, such that most participants reported feeling that they had important or meaningful discussions with people at work, had positive perceptions of their co-workers, and had close friends within their workplace. In addition, approximately two-thirds of participants reported that they believed disagreements in their workplace were uncommon and that they received appropriate recognition for their work.

Findings related to the user experience survey indicated that a majority of participants reported a positive experience participating in the pilot; additionally, an overwhelming majority reported no difficulty during on-boarding. Most participants indicated that the quantity of points received was fair based on how much time was required to complete an offer. Further, attitudes towards the nudges and blogs were neutral; thus, a potential area for future research is to examine and pre-test nudges and blogs that will be perceived as more positive as well as effective. Response rates suggest that challenge based tasks (i.e., challenging oneself or others) and participation in a large-scale workplace or government improvement initiative were valued as secondary incentives when compared to obtaining rewards (i.e., points).

In light of these findings, the research put forth from the current pilot is a strong foundation on which to propel future research. GC initiatives for employee well-being have gained incredible support but, at times, have been unable to progress due to internal and external limitations, such as ineffective implementation. Current methodologies for gathering data on federal employees’ well-being have been limited in (a) their inability to provide longitudinal results, and (b) their limited uptake of modern digital solutions. Thus far, results from employee well-being initiatives, such as the PSES, have been reported annually, but there have been limited practical applications of that knowledge. In addition, few longitudinal studies of this nature have empirically explored system usability. This pilot represents the first step to address these issues by leveraging current technological applications in order to bridge the gap between intended and actionable change. This was accomplished by the successful recruitment of a large sample across various GC departments, in consideration of the variability of experiences among employees. Further, the inclusion of incentives, albeit minimal in monetary value, revealed increased motivation for participation. Finally, despite the inability to compare the control and experimental groups (i.e., participants that did versus those that did not receive nudges), results from Offer 7 suggest that participants nevertheless engaged in some of the nudge behaviours. Although, given that the sample was a convenience sample and these conclusions cannot be generalized to GC employees as a whole, the data suggests that this pilot was regarded as a positive experience and that initiatives similar to this one could be beneficial to the GC’s pursuit of improved federal workplace well-being.

The large scale participation across various GC departments has garnered interest from various GC partners thus enabling further recognition of the priority to investigate the improved well-being of GC employees. Notwithstanding the barriers outlined below, the results of this pilot may facilitate recommendations for the future state of well-being research in the GC. Moreover, it is our hope that leveraging this pilot will aid future research to uphold the prioritization of mental health and well-being in the workplace. These findings are intended to inspire future investigation and initiatives of this nature in order to improve upon future approaches to well-being research. This pilot has provided an example of


the considerations to be made in the exploration of the efficacy of mobile application uptake to research well-being among Canada’s largest workforce.

4.1 Limitations and Recommendations

There are several limitations of this pilot study that should be considered when interpreting the results and taken into account for future research. Table 4 includes an outline of the major limitations as well as potential recommendations to be implemented in the future state of this research (see Annex B for a table of digital and mobile application alternatives to be considered in future research).


Table 4: Overview of study limitations and recommendations.

Concern Constraint Limitation Recommendation

Engagement and Adherence

iPhone or Android devices

It did not include other mobile devices such as BlackBerry

Ensure participants have use of an iPhone or Android device at sign-up

No web presence No alternate means for employees to be engaged in the study

Plateaued adherence one month into the study

Inclusion of multiple departments meant researchers could not standardize or test for the best recruitment and promotional methods

Pre-testing can explore variety of adherence measures Utility of interactive dashboard to monitor participation

Sample Size and Recruitment

Only 1470 participant spaces were available

This does not provide an adequate sample size to form conclusion(s)

Increase number of departments to be included

The study could not employ sophisticated sampling methods

The sample is a convenience sample and limits our ability to generalize our findings

Conduct stratified random sampling or a randomized controlled trial

Length of Study Due to fiscal year end, the study duration needed to be reduced

Longitudinal data could only be collected within the available study duration

To effectively influence and measure changes in behaviour a longer time period is required

Limited available time for marketing

Dependence on networking for recruitment can create imbalance in numbers for participant groups

Multiple promotion measures: top-down from leadership, within department newsletters and emails, and between department members

Rewards System Participation resulted in being provided with rewards

A control could not be put in place to compare results without a rewards system, could not explore impact of incentivization

Balance participant rates between control and test groups, aim to examine differences in behaviour due to incentives

Limited variety of reward types

Rewards were only available from companies already included in the application

Select application with customizable reward types

On-Boarding Challenges at sign-up could have discouraged participation

Multiple entry attempts at postal code or reward card information

Pre-test on-boarding process to ensure seamless sign-up procedure and confirm in-application tutorials or user support to ensure ease of use



Privacy and Security

The application required the entry of personal information (i.e., postal code and reward card)

Only those participants who were comfortable with inputting this information participated

Consider educating participants on the security measures undertaken to protect personal information as this could pose a problem in future recruitment

No Wi-Fi is available in work environments for personal devices

Only participants who were willing to use their data plan or use the application in a non-work Wi-Fi environment would participate

Ensure participant is to use data, consider compensation

Third Party Contract

Reliance on other organizations

Balancing timelines and resources of various contract members; challenge to remain up to date while using multiple channels of contact

Ensure each contract member’s responsibilities and expected deliverables are defined and upheld from study launch to close; hold regular team meetings

Issues with Carrot Rewards

Researchers were not made aware of in-application “bugs” until after project launch

When selecting a mobile application, consider input from user reviews to ensure minimal “bugs”

Application Selection

Application design was predetermined

Notifications could be turned off by the user, could not properly measure impact of nudges

Stress importance of notifications remaining on

Feedback could only be collected from external surveys

Inclusion of in-application feedback survey to collect most up-to-date user experience

Features could not be adjusted according to original study design

Ensure there is a thorough vetting of potential applications to be leveraged prior to selection (refer to Annex B) Design original application

Contract Bankruptcy

Carrot Rewards declared bankruptcy before study completion

Data collection and analyses were limited to what data could be released before the company’s closing

Promote transparency among all organizations involved



Rewards Options Removal of Aeroplan miles partway through study

Participants collecting Aeroplan miles lose motivation to participate

Contractual guarantee that rewards options will remain available

Limited reward options

Selected application did not allow for variety of reward types and limited timeline did not allow for pre-testing to gauge for preferred reward type

Select application that allows for reward personalization and pre-test participants to short-list types of rewards that will be most valued and engaging

Data No access to study data

Analyses conducted outside of research team, in accordance with PIPEDA

Create clauses for researchers to gain data access if contract members cannot remain in control of study data

Some questions created by those outside of the research team

Inclusion of these questions could not be statistically analyzed due to a lack of reliability and validation

Only include metrics with validated content

Blog Posts User feedback remarked some blog content was already well-known

Low number of link outs for blogs that are not incentivized

Consider varying the mode of delivery (i.e., informational videos or gamified lessons)


5 Conclusion

The current pilot was designed to provide insight into the perceptions of GC employees’ well-being as well as to assess different and new strategies for doing so. The research outlined herein was intended to increase recognition of well-being initiatives among Canada’s largest workforce. Using a longitudinal design, the pilot leveraged a mobile application that offered reward-based incentivization to elicit positive behaviour change. Although, as discussed, there were limitations associated with this pilot, we provide an outline of our approach as well as the ways in which future interventions and research projects can and should be improved upon in an effort to promote workplace well-being.


References

Boland, H., D’Agata, M., Granek, J. A., Nazarov, A., and Jaz, A. (2019). A reward-based approach to improve workplace well-being awareness and behaviours. Defence Research and Development Canada, External Literature, DRDC-RDDC-2019-N273, paper presented at NATO HFM—302 Symposium, Berlin, Germany.

Canadian Standards Association and Bureau de normalisation du Québec (CSA Group / BNQ; 2013). Psychological health and safety in the workplace—Prevention, promotion, and guidance to staged implementation (CSA Publication No. CAN/CSAZ100313/BNQ9700-803/2013). Last access date February 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.csagroup.org/documents/codes-and-standards/publications/CAN_CSA-Z1003-13_BNQ_9700-803_2013_EN.pdf.

Chung, C., Gorm, N., Shklovski, I. A., and Munson, S. (2017). Finding the right fit. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI, 17, pp. 4875–4886.

Connolly, S. L., Miller, C. J., Koenig, C. J., Zamora, K. A., Wright, P. B., Stanley, R. L., and Pyne, J. M. (2018). Veterans’ attitudes toward smartphone app use for mental health care: Qualitative study of rurality and age differences. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 6, e10748.

Cook, R. F., Billings, D. W., Hersch, R. K., Back, A. S., and Hendrickson, A. (2007). A field test of a web-based workplace health promotion program to improve dietary practices, reduce stress, and increase physical activity: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9, pp. 1–15.

Davies, C. A., Spence, J. C., Vandelanotte, C., Caperchione, C. M., and Mummery, W. (2012). Meta-analysis of internet-delivered interventions to increase physical activity levels. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9.

Donkin, L., Christensen, H., Naismith, S. L., Neal, B., Hickie, I. B., and Glozier, N. (2011). A Systematic Review of the Impact of Adherence on the Effectiveness of e-Therapies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13.

Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., and Price, R. H. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, pp. 51–63.

Ivey, G. W., Blanc, J. R. S., Michaud, K., and Dobreva‐Martinova, T. (2018). A measure and model of psychological health and safety in the workplace that reflects Canada’s National Standard. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration.

Korte, E. M., Wiezer, N., Janssen, J. H., Vink, P., and Kraaij, W. (2018). Evaluating an mHealth app for health and well-being at work: Mixed-method qualitative study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 6.

Loncar, A., D’Agata, M., Granek, J. A., Boland, H., Patel, N., and Jaz, A. (2020). End-User Insights from a Government of Canada Workplace Well-Being Intervention Pilot, Defence Research and Development Canada, Scientific Letter, DRDC-RDDC-2020-L106.


Maher, C. A., Lewis, L. K., Ferrar, K., Marshall, S., Bourdeaudhuij, I. D., and Vandelanotte, C. (2014). Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e40.

National Defence (2017). Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy. Last access date February 2020. Retrieved from: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/canada-defence-policy/docs/canada-defence-policy-report.pdf.

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (July 11, 2019). The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).Last access date February 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/privacy-laws-in-canada/the-personal-information-protection-and-electronic-documents-act-pipeda/.

Schoeppe, S., Alley, S., Lippevelde, W. V., Bray, N. A., Williams, S. L., Duncan, M. J., and Vandelanotte, C. (2016). Efficacy of interventions that use apps to improve diet, physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, pp. 693–713.

Suurd Ralph, C. D., Dobreva-Martinova, T., and Ivey, G. W. (2019). Assessment to solutions approach to psychological health and safety in Defence, paper presented at NATO HFM—302 Symposium, Berlin, Germany.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (January 13, 2020). Public Service Employee Survey. Last access date February 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/public-service-employee-survey.html.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., and Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, pp. 981–1002.

Wernick, M. (August 13, 2019). 2016–2019 Mental health progress report: The Canadian Public Service experience. Privy Council Office. Last access date February 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/blueprint-2020/contact-group-mental-health/progress-report-2016-2019.html.


Annex A Offer Completion Breakdown by Department

Table A.1: Offer completion by department (numerical values).

Department Redemptions

at Launch Offer

1 Offer

2 Offer

3 Offer

4 Offer

5 Offer

6 Offer

7

Transport Canada

247 210 167 155 145 143 125 101

Statistics Canada 67 54 45 44 38 39 34 28

Canada School of Public Service

19 18 13 12 8 7 6 6

Department of Defence

663 534 449 413 389 391 365 270

Health Canada 416 406 334 312 312 281 267 224

Note. Redemptions at launch indicate a count of the number of codes redeemed by department.

Table A.2: Offer completion and non-completion percentages (by department).

Department Offer 1 Offer 2 Offer 3 Offer 4 Offer 5 Offer 6 Offer 7

Transport Canada 14.3% 11.4% 10.5% 9.9% 9.7% 8.5% 7.6%

Statistics Canada 3.7% 3.1% 3.0% 2.6% 2.7% 2.3% 2.1%

Canada School of Public Service 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%

Department of Defence 36.3% 30.5% 28.1% 26.5% 26.6% 24.8% 20.3%

Health Canada 27.6% 22.7% 21.2% 21.2% 19.1% 18.2% 16.8%

Total Percentage of Non-Completions 16.9% 31.4% 36.3% 39.3% 41.4% 45.8% 57.2%


Annex B Digital and Mobile Application Alternatives to be Considered in Future Research

Table B.1: Alternative mobile and digital applications for consideration.

Name Purpose Description Cost App/

Program Webpage

Link in the App Store (User Rating)

Vida Health Health Coaching Mobile App *[for individuals /employers]

Personalized 1:1 plan created by a health coach

Informing areas such as: Weight loss, Stress management, Manage and/or prevent/reverse chronic conditions, Start/improve/expand exercise routine, Improve diet/nutrition, Establish balance, and/or Improve communication skills / Strengthen relationships

Check-ins, goal setting, forming habits and staying in touch with health coach through messaging, and phone and video consults

No nudging

Free https://www.vida.com/enterprise/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/app/meet-your-vida-health-coach/id917397071 4.4/5 stars (39 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vida.healthcoach 4.1/5 stars (250 ratings)



Program Webpage


Sweatcoin Pedometer Rewards App

Uses phone’s accelerometers and GPS to track and verify outdoor steps

Exchange “sweatcoins” earned for goods, services, and experiences / donate to partnering charities / exchange with friends

No nudging

Free https://sweatco.in/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sweatcoin/id971023427 4.5/5 stars (79.9k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.sweatco.app&hl=en_CA 3.9/5 stars (98,284 ratings)

TextIt Multi-platform Messaging Builder

Create SMS and voice applications for customers to text/call and inquire

Offers real-time analytics, based on data points from each interaction to add to the customer’s profile

Customizable interaction with customers based on texting exchange (aka, “flow”)

No nudging

Free trial Pay for “credits” where 1 credit = 1 message sent or received

https://textit.in/

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nyaruka.textit.surveyor&hl=en 3/5 stars (2 ratings) (“TextIt Surveyor” for monitoring on the go)



Program Webpage


SuperBetter [“Original” or “At Work” versions]

Gamified Resilience Training *[original/ workplace versions]

Engages users/employees through gamification to build resilience and improve mental health / recovery

Implement game play mindset to improve psychological skills and brain stimulation

At Work: foster teamwork and peer-to-peer support

Provides real-time data on employees No nudging

“Original” is free

Original: https://www.superbetter.com/science At Work: https://www.superbetteratwork.com/how-superbetter-works

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/superbetter/id536634968 4.7/5 stars (4.2 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.superbetter.paid&hl=en 4.3/5 stars (5,468 ratings)

Optimity Personalized Wellness *[for employers]

Workplace oriented wellness application

Challenges between colleagues Syncs with wearable tech and calendar

and fit your user’s schedule Supports holistic health, builds

micro-habits, social (connect with colleagues for accountability), and gamified redeemable cash rewards

Daily “micro-habits” guide action to be integrated into daily routines (nudging)

Free [application and web versions]

https://www.myoptimity.com/solution *presence on Medium.com: https://medium.com/@myoptimity

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/optimity/id975041781 4.8/5 stars 920 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.myhealthsphere.challenger&hl=en 4.1/5 stars (32 ratings)



Program Webpage


Virgin Pulse Personalized Employee Wellness

Provides employees access to their company’s personalized well-being program

Programs are designed by Virgin Pulse based on individual goals of the organization/client

Step / activity / calories burned tracking, collect reward points, challenge colleagues

“Daily cards” = personalized tips/resources to improve well-being

No nudging

Free https://www.virginpulse.com/our-products/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/virgin-pulse/id793322895 4.9/5 stars (86.1k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.virginpulse.virginpulse&hl=en 4.6/5 stars (32k ratings)

Achievement Paid Health Tracking

Pays users in actual cash for tracking steps and answering surveys / participating in studies

Pays for: tracking steps, logging food, meditation sessions, sleep, and miles biked

Payment in cash or to charities No nudging

Free

https://www.myachievement.com/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/achievement-reward-health/id793039965 4.7/5 stars (15.5k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.achievemint.android 4.6/5 stars (9,540 ratings)



Program Webpage


Higi Health Data Tracker (and sharing)

US based health company; tracks pulse, weight, blood pressure, steps, BMI, body fat, and gym check-ins

Health stations across the US or on a personal mobile / health tracking device

No nudging

Free https://higi.com/about/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/app/id599485135 3.1/5 stars (87 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.higi.main 4/5 stars (906 ratings)

Winwalk Rewards Based, Anonymous Health Tracking

Track and count steps progress accurately (steps tracker, walking distance, calories burned, active time to improve fitness)

No GPS tracking Checks historical steps data, as well as

personal records Earn more coins with missions, surveys,

achievements or using the referral system

Rewards: cash / digital gift cards No nudging

Free http://www.winwalk.club/

Apple: N/A Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.winwalk.android 4.2/5 stars (6,345 ratings)



Program Webpage


Humu Businesses Personalized Nudge Creation Software

AI analysis of employee surveys to gauge unique data inputs from each individual and tailor personalized nudges to impact individual behaviour change

Delivers customized daily nudges (text messages or emails) to each employee based on their engagement and previous data points

Nudges evolve based on individual employee’s progression

N/A https://humu.com/product/

N/A

Nudge Rewards Employee Engagement App

Designed for company use to improve overall productivity and worker efficiency

Produces real-time analytics based on employees’ responses to company relevant questions/messages delivered by push-notification (aka “nudges”)

Source for providing company relevant information to employees, providing feedback on the company, and sharing business ideas

Built in gamification to increase engagement by giving points for participating

Free https://www.nudgerewards.com/about/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/nudge-rewards/id550522206 4.6/5 stars (3k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.greengagemobile&hl=en_CA 4.4/5 stars (4,201 ratings)



Program Webpage


LifeWorks Modern Employee Assistance Program App

24/7 mobile-first user experience drives engagement through well-being content and immediate access to an EAP counsellor through live chat / text / email

Connects to wearable tech to help employees understand their state of well-being (physical, social, mental, and financial)

Gamification encourages participation and motivation through individual challenges

Financial well-being incentivized by cashback, gift cards, and in-store/online discounts

Nudging via push notifications encourage regular participation

Free https://www.lifeworks.com/solution/product-overview/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lifeworks/id662088737 4.7/5 stars (1.1k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wam.android&hl=en_US 3.6/5 stars (202 ratings)

Whil: Mindfulness & Meditation

Employee, Stress Reduction Training

Goal based digital training platform for improving mental wellbeing, performance, relationships, sleep and reducing stress

Programs for mindfulness, sleep, and emotional intelligence

12 training areas, +250 programs and +1,500 micro-learning sessions

No nudging

Free https://www.whil.com/about-us

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/whil-mindfulness-meditation/id975376798 3.4/5 stars (59 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.whil.whilapp&hl=en_US 3.1/5 stars (63 ratings)



Program Webpage


Sprout [at Work]

Health and Wellness

Employee engagement and recognition, gamification, rewards and incentives and an online wellness portal to encourage participation

Mobile and email push notifications (nudging)

Users can create their own events and challenges, employers can communicate to the company about wellness related information

Incentives = compensation/recognition /rewards/appreciation

Includes: integration with health tracking apps/devices, just-in-time communications, personal and companywide challenges, and real-time, predictive, activity driven Health Risk Assessment

Sprout Partners Platform provides a real-time dashboard offering insights on trend data in the company

Free [application and web versions]

https://www.sproutatwork.com/employers.html

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/sprout-at-work/id904741273 3.8/5 stars (14 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sproutatwork.sproutmobileapp&hl=en_CA 2.6/5 stars (103 ratings)



Program Webpage


CoreHealth Technologies [web platform] CoreHealth MyWellApp [mobile companion app]

Corporate wellness

Register through employer using an access code

Can track all wellness activities, interact with other participants and/or wellness coaches, and monitor progress

Wellness content library resources (education), health assessments, biometric management, (activity, eating, wellness, weight, stress) challenges, self-help programs, coaching, events, incentives, surveys, and social collaboration

Corporate portal is tailored to the company’s brand and customizable (could modify to include nudges?)

Text message reminders for appointments and events

Free https://corehealth.global/wellness-platform/our-wellness-technology Features list: https://corehealth.global/documents/CoreHealth_Feature_Sheet.pdf

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/mywellapp-by-corehealth/id1381503197 3.3/5 stars (4 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.corehealth.mywellapp 1.5 stars (2 ratings, just launched for Android)



Program Webpage


Limeade [ONE] Corporate and Individual Well-being

Available as an integrated corporate platform or individual solution

Promotes: well-being, engagement, inclusion, and communication by improving physical, emotional, financial and work well-being

Step count and challenges, well-being assessments and surveys, wellness activity library, points & rewards, personalized recommendations, interactive video learning, device integration, smart communications within the corporate network (nudging? if delivered top-down), and data driven dashboards

Communication tool that reaches every employee, HR, and leadership through the mobile application

Free https://www.limeade.com/limeade-one/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/limeade/id921855458 4.7/5 stars (3.6k ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.limeade.limeade&hl=en_CA 3.8/5 stars (362 ratings)



Program Webpage


Hotseat Employee Physical Activity Promotion App

Employees set preferred activity type, application then schedules times to exercise based on individual’s availability (calendar sync)

Users only commit 2min increments of activity at a time

Receive reminders when it’s time for an activity break (nudging)

Play with friends/family and against colleagues

Tracking of their preferred activity (i.e., dancing, climbing stairs, etc.)

Rewarded for completing challenges Allows users to see the value of

exercise by taking short activity breaks

N/A https://www.gethotseatapp.com/

N/A

Ikkuma [SuperHuman Project]

Cloud-Based Corporate Wellness Platform

Gamified 24/7 wellness coach to promote wellness and employee well-being

Uses cognitive-behavioural methods: leaderboards, gratitude, virtual coaching, and challenges

Virtual coach gives regular habit updates and inspiration

Gamified (dozens of levels, daily power-ups, points and experience bar)

Challenges: team or individual Connect within your network, share

wins and gratitude

Free https://ikkuma.com/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ikkumalife/id1208285420 (no ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ikkuma.superhuman&hl=en_CA 3/5 stars (1 rating)



Program Webpage


Achievers Employee Success Platform

Cloud-based software designed to drive employee engagement through points-based recognition

Consolidates all recognition initiatives by combining corporate rewards program and aligning employees and business objectives by recognizing shared victories

Allows every level of leadership to understand reports and trends, and gain insights / make decisions of employees’ performance

Single-click poll check-ins to share daily engagement; follow-up from “Allie” (AI bot) to better understand the employee’s feelings and perception of work

“Pulse” streamlines surveys to distribute among employees

All data available in real-time to leadership

Rewards: entertainment, dining, travel, VISA, concierge, donations

Free https://www.achievers.com/what-we-offer/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/achievers/id945779451 4.4/5 stars (61 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.achievers.client&hl=en_CA 3/5 stars (473 ratings)



Program Webpage


Changers [CO2 Fit]

Environment-focused, Employee Motivation and Wellness Platform

Customized health platform combining: employee engagement, environmental protection and occupational healthcare

Users create and track challenges (individual or on a team) designed to motivate employees to be active/participate in environmentally friendly activities

Redeemable coins for rewards (lottery draw for prizes) or corporate benefits

Social network feature to give stars, post information/events

Free https://changers.com/

Apple: https://apps.apple.com/app/id938264264 3.9/5 stars (8 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blacksquared.changers 3.3/5 stars (302 ratings)

iRewardHealth Employee wellness promotion application for organizations

100% customizable reward options Can be linked directly to users’ bank

accounts for cash payouts Promote behavioural awareness and

rewards employees for activity Employers register employees must

then download the application and activate their account = no on-boarding

Individualized rewards based on user’s baseline and behaviour (perks or cash)

Food tracking, pedometer, fitness activities are all rewarded

No nudging

$1 per member per month (application is free)

https://www.irewardhealth.com/

Apple : https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1063211546 4.8/5 stars (10 ratings) Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.irewardhealth&hl=en_US 5/5 stars (2 ratings)

Note that the information included in in this table was gathered in 2019. As such, exact program and app store webpages, as well as user ratings may have changed since publication.

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA *Security markings for the title, authors, abstract and keywords must be entered when the document is sensitive

1. ORIGINATOR (Name and address of the organization preparing the document. A DRDC Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, is entered in Section 8.)

DRDC – Toronto Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada 1133 Sheppard Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M3K 2C9 Canada

2a. SECURITY MARKING (Overall security marking of the document including special supplemental markings if applicable.)

CAN UNCLASSIFIED

2b. CONTROLLED GOODS

NON-CONTROLLED GOODS DMC A

3. TITLE (The document title and sub-title as indicated on the title page.)

A reward-based mobile approach to improve workplace well-being awareness and behaviours

4. AUTHORS (Last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc., not to be used)

Loncar, A. A.; DʼAgata, M.; Boland, H.; Granek, J. A.; Jaz, A; Haber, M.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.)

August 2020

6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total pages, including Annexes, excluding DCD, covering and verso pages.)

59

6b. NO. OF REFS (Total references cited.)

20

7. DOCUMENT CATEGORY (e.g., Scientific Report, Contract Report, Scientific Letter.)

Reference Document

8. SPONSORING CENTRE (The name and address of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development.)

DRDC – Toronto Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada 1133 Sheppard Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M3K 2C9 Canada

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

04i

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)

10a. DRDC PUBLICATION NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.)

DRDC-RDDC-2020-D081

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)

11a. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN CANADA (Approval for further dissemination of the document. Security classification must also be considered.)

Public release

11b. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE CANADA (Approval for further dissemination of the document. Security classification must also be considered.)

12. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Use semi-colon as a delimiter.)

Workplace Well-Being; Mobile App

13. ABSTRACT (When available in the document, the French version of the abstract must be included here.)

Workplace well-being is associated with employee satisfaction and engagement with, and positive perceptions of one’s workplace and organizational culture (Grant et al., 2007). The development and implementation of effective workplace well-being interventions with long-term benefits is challenging. The current digital age allows for such interventions to leverage and exploit technological advances—a primary goal of the current research. Specifically, a pilot research project was conducted in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Government of Canada (GC) Entrepreneurs from the Deputy Ministers Task Force on Public Sector Innovation, with a goal of promoting GC employees’ workplace well-being. Using a longitudinal design, the pilot project leveraged a mobile application that offers reward-based incentivization to elicit positive behaviour change and improve workplace well-being across multiple GC departments. This Reference Document details the methodology, results, challenges, and recommendations for future work in this domain. In addition, this report provides an outline for mobile reward-based technological intervention on workplace well-being among GC employees for future interventions of this nature.

Le bien-être sur le lieu de travail est associé à la satisfaction et à l’engagement des employés, ainsi qu’à perception positive du lieu de travail et de la culture organisationnelle d’un employé (Grant et al., 2007). L’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’interventions efficaces en matière de bien-être sur le lieu de travail, avec des avantages à long terme, constituent un défi. L’ère numérique actuelle permet à de telles interventions de tirer parti et d’exploiter les avancées technologiques — un des principaux objectifs de la recherche actuelle. Plus précisément, un projet de recherche pilote a été mené en collaboration avec RDDC et les entrepreneurs du gouvernement du Canada (GC) du Groupe de travail des sous-ministres sur l’innovation dans le secteur public, afin de promouvoir le bien-être des employés du GC en milieu de travail. À l’aide d’une étude longitudinale, le projet pilote a exploité une application mobile qui offre une incitation basée sur la récompense pour susciter un changement de comportement positif et améliorer le bien-être sur le lieu de travail dans plusieurs services du gouvernement. Ce document de référence détaille la méthodologie, les résultats, les défis et les recommandations pour les travaux futurs dans ce domaine. En outre, ce rapport donne les grandes lignes d’une intervention technologique mobile basée sur la récompense sur le bien-être au travail parmi les employés du GC pour les futures interventions de cette nature.

ward-b kplace - based m well-b - CANDIS PDF Service

Documents

Transcript of ward-b kplace - based m well-b - CANDIS PDF Service