Evidence-based along with science-based are terms that get thrown around consistently in the health and wellness field. I like to equate this phenomenon with the term “healthy” which has become something very opaque and grossly open to interpretation.
For example, in nutrition, large corporations such as General Mills, and Coca-Cola have lots of labels on food and drink products that state healthy or possibly even “heart-healthy.” When you look closer behind the morass you see something like multi-grain cheerios still has 6 grams of sugar in each serving and multiple processed ingredients which are far removed from anything health conscious. Besides the fact no one ever eats one serving size and or that refined carbohydrates raise blood sugar in a similar fashion to sugar.
How about Coca-Cola’s Vitamin Water clocking in with 32 grams of sugar in a bottle. Posing with the title “Vitamin” to make you believe it is something healthy.
OK so back to the evidence-based idea. Every since worksite wellness programs enthusiastically pushed the importance of ROI (return on investment) to support their programs, science and academic terms became the norm. It was as if validation of a program relied primarily on certain statistics that could prove validity or at least show the company leaders that this is working.
In principle that’s a good thing, right? As a business owner I don’t want to be spending money on something if it’s not good for the company. Business 101.
But let’s stop right there for a moment. What if that evidence is biased, out of date or not collected by an honest and independent source? In a court of law it is evidence but getting to a real verdict might need closer investigation. Or the simple concept of follow the money, research that supports a particular idea might in fact be funded by those with a financial interest.
Then there is the question does the data collected really measure a program’s worthiness. Example 1, do we really know without an ounce of doubt that if an individual’s cholesterol score diminishes and or if they lose two pounds over the course of the year that they will be better at their job? Example 2, if a company has fewer people who exercise will their stock price go down? Example 3, what if the true indicator of productivity in the workplace was personal autonomy and job satisfaction and not a personal health marker?
You see my point? If wellness keeps promoting ideas or programs that are based on old evidence can it really be evidence-based. Is it time to review other evidence?
If you are in a health, worksite wellness, healthcare and or HR fields you should be aware of Al Lewis’s work. Lewis offers a completely other perspective on “evidence-based” when it comes to savings on healthcare costs from wellness programs. Books such as, Why Nobody Believes the Numbers, Surviving Workplace Wellness, and a seminal work co-authored with Tom Emerick Cracking Health Costs.
Another good source to read is Jon Robison and Rosie Ward who clearly demonstrate new thinking when it comes to the use of incentives and coercive methods in the workplace. In their book, How to Build a Thriving Culture at Work.” Ward and Robison investigate new paradigms of the work environment and have a substantial body of “evidence” to back up their concepts.
Moving on
If there is one thing this past election cycle has taught us, it is arm yourself with diverse perspectives on every topic. Do your research, find voices that are critical even if they differ from your own.
Full disclosure in my early (years ago) days of wellness I also drank the Kool-Aid. I believed the fancy reports by Harvard authors and other academic wellness leaders such as Ron Goetzel et al. I’m not by any stroke of the imagination saying their work is all false but critical conversation on what evidence is applicable should be a mainstay of the field.
If Coca-Cola does a research study saying all you need to do for a healthy weight is exercise more and that sugary products are actually good for you. Is that evidence-based that should be promoted? They have reports (aka evidence) backed by their own dieticians and “experts” to support it.
I think many similarities can be drawn to the field of wellness to the current debates happening in the field of nutrition. The following two excerpts are from a blog post: questioning the role of young newly accredited dieticians.
“You start to realize much of the so called “evidenced based” science you have been taught, has been funded by junk food companies and big pharma. But it gets worse, much worse!”
“Do you perpetuate the old dogma, the standard totally failed dietary advice, and play it safe, or go out into the world, armed with the latest science and make a real difference. Decisions, decisions, decisions.”
The bottom line is think critically all the time. Dare to question status quo and make a difference.
