Is “Social Media Hygiene” The Next Frontier In Workplace Wellness?

As the Medical Director of the Kansas Business Group on Health I’m sometimes asked to weigh in on hot topics that might affect employers or employees. This is a reprint of a blog post from KBGH:

Social media takes up an inordinate amount of our time. A recent report by Activate Consulting found that, when multitasking with consumer internet and media activities are accounted for, the new “normal” day is 31.5 hours:

avg-day-by-activity-graphic-social-media-blog-post.png

The amount of time we spend on these platforms is not likely to go down. According to that same Activate Consulting report, the number of social media networks an average person participates in is projected to almost double in the next four years, from 5.8 to 10.2 per user.

And in spite of snarky comments—many of them, yes, on social media—about the habits of millennials or Generation Z, it is Gen X workers in their forties and fifties who are the heaviest social media users, at almost seven hours per week, rising about 17 minutes per year.

All this virtual communication may be bad for us. Studies that are now several years old show that the more Facebook you use, the worse you are likely to feel. As anyone who has ever been accidentally pulled into an email argument that could have been solved with a single two-minute face-to-face conversation can tell you, in email and on social media in particular, we may abandon social norms in response to feedback from other users, since the algorithms that drive the platforms reward content that is highly emotionally charged. Tweets that use the greatest amount of moral-emotional language are the most likely to be retweeted or liked. Facebook posts that display not only disagreement, but indignant disagreement, are more likely to be liked or shared.

Why is this?

Researchers believe that virtual conversations lack the “advanced analogue cues” that in-person, video, or phone conversations have. Without clues like body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions, we have a hard time discerning the true intent or meaning behind innocuous statements.

What can be done?

A randomized trial by Stanford investigators showed that people who were paid to deactivate their Facebook accounts—as compared to people paid to continue their usual activity—were happier and reported increased well-being, decreased political polarization, and increased time spent with friends and family. And, presumably because of the drug-like effect of social media platforms, people who were paid to discontinue Facebook experienced apprehension at re-starting, just as a former smoker may be nervous about going outside around other smokers at break time.

But because of the strong network effect of social media, asking employees to cancel their accounts is probably unrealistic. Instead, we should look for healthier ways to use the platforms. After sifting through the mainstream medical literature, here are some of our tips:

  1. Encourage your employees to use social media as a bridge to in-person connection and real experiences, preferably outdoors and definitely away from screens. Using social media this way to connect to other people you’ve lost touch with may even have profound professional benefits.

  2. Create this bridge to in-person connection by changing the way you approach social media. Do not seek “likes.” Do not like other people’s posts, even though that may seem rude at first. Instead of passively scrolling through your Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook feed and hitting the “like” button, intentionally reach out to people. One study found that even one week of increased composed, directed social media posts to friends and family increased happiness. Another study compared this strategy to simply “liking” or sharing posts on Facebook. People who received targeted, composed messages from friends or family felt better; those who simply got “likes,” status updates, or shared posts experienced no change.

  3. Encourage employees to enforce “sacred spaces” where no devices are used, in order to reclaim conversation and non-verbal advanced analog cues. At home this may mean the kitchen, the dining room, and the bedroom, since even the presence of a device on the table may alter conversations, and looking at bright screens before bed can disrupt sleep (to say nothing of sex). As technology researcher Sherri Turkle famously said, “The greatest favor you can do to your sister, mother, lover, professor, student, is put away your phone.”

  4. While you’re at it, encourage employees to delete all social media apps from their phones and use social media only on a device they have to seek out, like a desktop computer. If that seems too severe a step, encourage them to go to their phone’s settings and kill notifications from all social media.

Are there strategies you’ve tried, either at home or in the workplace?  We’d love to hear them!

Are Sugared-Beverage Bans an Effective Employer Wellness Strategy?

As the Medical Director of the Kansas Business Group on Health I’m sometimes asked to weigh in on hot topics that might affect employers or employees. This is a reprint of a blog post from KBGH:

Health impact of sugared beverages

Sugared beverages account for the majority of excess calories Americans take in. Accordingly, a person’s intake of sugared drinks tracks very neatly to his or her risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Even artificially sweetened beverages are linked to early death, possibly through their effect on the bacteria, or “microbiome” growing in our intestines. But getting people to drink less of them is a vexing problem. Countries and cities including Mexico, Philadelphia, and Berkeley, California, among many others, have experimented with taxing sugared drinks, with mostly health-positive results. New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to limit the size of sugared drinks that could be sold to sixteen ounces or less, a move that was eventually blocked by the courts. And banning sugar-sweetened beverages in schools has not reduced consumption, at least in survey data.

Is banning the sale of sugared beverages effective?

Recently the we’ve seen the results of a sugared-drink sales ban implemented by the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) in 2015 (students and employees were still able to bring drinks on-campus). Investigators followed the habits and health indicators of 202 volunteer subjects before and after the prohibition. Ten months after the ban, subjects’ consumption of sugared drinks was down by almost half: 48.5 percent. Even though the participants still drank a large quantity of sugared drinks after the ban—18 ounces a day, on average—they saw dramatic improvements in health. They lost almost an inch from their waists, and the fraction of the study population who decreased their drink intake the most saw improvements in insulin resistance, the phenomenon that leads to diabetes.

Obstacles to overcome

So the science of limiting sugared drinks at the worksite seems sound, at least in terms of reducing the risk of employee illness. But major obstacles threaten such policies: first, the happiness of workers is likely to be affected, at least in the short-term. Employees may rebel against a workplace culture they perceive as too paternalistic. This viewpoint was exploited by tobacco companies during the implementation of smoking bans in the recent past. This is where an honest outreach program to employees would be worthwhile: we know that excess sugar intake is linked to depression, and that improved dietary habits can profoundly improve mood in depressed people. Sharing these stories with employees in an engaging way that shows light at the end of the sugared-drink tunnel may help. After all, a decade after widespread smoking bans, norms have shifted to the point that a re-introduction of smoking in worksites and restaurants would be met with fierce opposition.

Second, your company may have a contractual arrangement with beverage vendors. This is particularly true of institutions of higher learning. However, possibly sensing the movement of the tide away from sugared drinks, beverage companies are frantically working to offer healthier alternatives and the National Automatic Merchandising Association, the trade organization for vending companies themselves, has pledged to make at least a third of its offered products meet the standards of at least two of the healthy food standards set by Partnership for a Healthier America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Heart Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the USDA’s Smart Snacks. So leaving vending on-site but reducing or eliminating sugared drinks is a potential compromise.

Has your worksite attempted to change the availability of certain snack foods or sugared drinks? The Kansas Business Group on Health would love to hear about your experience.

What’s the Value of an Annual “Checkup”?

As the Medical Director of the Kansas Business Group on Health I’m sometimes asked to weigh in on hot topics that might affect employers or employees. This is a reprint of a blog post from KBGH:

Are annual checkups all they’re cracked up to be?

Remember Cigna’s “Doctors of America” ads?

“We are the TV Doctors of America,” says McDreamy.

“And we’re partnering with Cigna to help save lives,” says Dr. John Carter.

“By getting you to a real doctor for a checkup,” chimes in Cuddy.

But to put our “Devil’s Advocates of America” hats on: what if this annual checkup business isn’t all it’s cracked up to be?

It is reasonable to hold any potential medical test or treatment to one of three standards:

  1. It makes the patient feel better. This includes hundreds of treatments, like using medications and physical therapy for pain, prescribing inhalers for asthma, giving antidepressants and therapy for depression, and replacing knees, for starters. It could even apply to things like bone mineral density screening, sometimes referred to as “DXA,” which linked with osteoporosis treatment may make no difference in the risk of death, but clearly prevents hip, wrist, and spine fractures.

  2. If it does not make the patient feel better, the test or treatment should make the patient live longer. This applies to everyday things like checking and treating high blood pressure and high cholesterol (neither one of which make most patients feel any better or worse today) to surgery and chemotherapy for cancers (most of which make patients feel much, much worse at least in the short-term, but prolong many lives).

  3. Finally, if a treatment makes no difference in how the patient feels and makes no difference in how long the patient lives, it should at the very least save money. The best example of this may be diabetes screening. As far as we can tell, screening for diabetes does not prolong life, at least not in the two or three trials that have specifically addressed the question. But diabetes screening linked to preventive measures like the Diabetes Prevention Program clearly saves money [disclaimer: the KBGH is closely linked to Health ICT through the Medical Society of Sedgwick County, which receives CDC funding to promote things like blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and diabetes prevention].

Many of the tests and treatments medicine offers do not live up to that rubric. This may be why the Cochrane Review, which many consider the highest level of evidence in medicine, published a review in 2018 stating that “Systematic offers of health checks are unlikely to be beneficial and may lead to unnecessary tests and treatments.” So when the TV Doctors of America say you need an annual checkup, what they surely mean is not that you need an old-fashioned sit-down with your doctor where, at the end of the visit, she gives you a “clean bill of health.” No. What I hope they mean is that you need to have access to a primary care provider. Investigators in 2019 found that every 10 additional primary care physicians per 100,000 people was associated with a 51-day increase in life expectancy, which doesn’t sound like much, but is pretty big by medical standards. Some estimate that a doctor practicing at the top of his license adds about 4.5 net years to the average patient’s life. Not too shabby.

“Systematic offers of health checks are unlikely to be beneficial and may lead to unnecessary tests and treatments.”

What actually improves or extends someone’s life?

What the TV Doctors of America really mean is that you should have certain preventive services like immunizations and periodic screenings for health conditions that, if left untreated, can profoundly shorten your life. Most of these aren’t sexy. Probably the most effective preventive medical intervention, for example, is a simple periodic blood pressure check with medications if your blood pressure is too high. Sexier things like cancer screenings tend to have a “disease-specific” benefit, meaning they prevent you from dying of colon, prostate, cervical, breast, or lung cancers specifically, but they may not make people live longer as a whole.

If there is doubt in your company about what services you should be providing, a good place to start is with the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a rotating group of doctors that follows very specific rules to evaluate the risks and benefits of specific screening. Their opinion holds a lot of weight because any test given a “B” or better rating is mandated to be covered by your insurance. Examples of “A” rated services are things like tobacco use counseling and interventions, blood pressure screening in adults, and screening for cervical and colon cancers, which are all strategies that easily conform to our rubric. Cholesterol testing in people without diabetes or heart disease gets a “B.” Screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55-69 with a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test is a good example of a “C” rated service, since it has no overall mortality benefit and its disease-specific mortality benefit is largely offset by the harms that screening can cause (prostate biopsies and surgeries can cause bladder leakage and erectile dysfunction, among other things). PSA screening for prostate cancer in men aged 70 or older gets a “D” rating because it appears, in the hive mind of the USPSTF, to cause more harm than it prevents; that is, it violates rules #2 and 3.

What does this mean for employers?

How do you apply this to your workforce? Start by being an informed shopper for any workplace wellness services being offered to your company. Whenever a wellness provider tries to charge you a lot of money for offering annual “wellness checks” or “health risk assessments,” check their recommendations against the opinion of the USPSTF (or have us at KBGH check them for you). If the amount of testing they’re charging far exceeds what the experts recommend, ask them why.

Second, work on the health literacy of your employees (we can help with this). It’s hard as a patient to turn down testing or treatment your doctor offers if you don’t have the background to know what works and what doesn’t. I’m a doctor myself, and even I’ve felt vulnerable being squeezed through the gears of the medical-industrial complex.