More Participants, But Low Participation Rate | Walking Challenge by Employment Type

📊 The moment the person in charge has to pause one more time at the results sheet

It is the day to wrap up the results after the walking challenge has ended. After recording the number of participants and the status of reward achievement, we review the budget for the next event. At this point, it is easy to assume that the operation went well by focusing on groups with a large number of participants. The fact that many people actually joined the program is important. However, to see if the opportunity to participate reached more employees, you must ask one more question.

How many people were able to participate in that group in total? According to the actual records of one institution, there were 33 regular employees and 81 contract employees. There were more contract employees. However, the eligible regular employees were 64, while the eligible contract employees were 380. Even when looking at the same participant count table Together with the number of subjects The point to check next has changed.

The total participation rate of 25.7% is a value calculated by summing the number of subjects and participants mentioned above. The participation rate of the two groups It is not a simple average figure. Presenting only the total numbers may obscure participation gaps among groups of different sample sizes, so it is better to view the overall results along with the results by group.

🔎 A difference in participation rates does not necessarily mean a difference in employee interest.

If we immediately conclude here that permanent employees are more interested in health or that contract workers have a lower willingness to participate, it will be difficult to improve operations. We must first verify whether they actually received notification, whether the application channels were the same, and whether the participation period was sufficient. The figures by employment type are It is a signal that there is a difference, but it is not the answer to why the difference occurred.

For example, if the announcement had been made only via the main internal email, would all eligible recipients have been able to see the notice at the same time? Was it clear whether new hires or employees nearing the end of their contracts were eligible to participate? Were there no participants who encountered difficulties during the app installation or account verification process? These are not a list of issues actually confirmed by this organization, but rather questions that the person in charge should review before the next round.

🛠️ Key takeaways from Nudge EAP operation records

The key point of this case is that the subjects and participation results were recorded separately by employment type. Thanks to this, it is possible to see not only which group had more participants, but also what percentage of the subjects in each group actually participated. The operations manager viewed this difference not as data to evaluate employee tendencies, but rather Materials reviewing the guidance and participation environment It can be used as.

You do not need to change every item at once. If you lack materials to explain the differences, first check if the guidance was received and review the procedures that were blocked during the initial stage. In the next session, you must keep track of the items you modified and those you left unchanged so that you can review the results and discuss what changes were made.

📋 You can start a report with just three lines: people, ratio, and next action.

If you simply include participation rate figures in the report, it is easy to end up with the conclusion that you should encourage the groups with low numbers. Try recording the target population and the number of participants first, comparing the ratios by group, and then connecting that to what you need to check in the next session. This way, the same results table becomes data for operational improvement rather than a report card.

When compiling participation statistics, it is best to prioritize the use of existing data within the scope necessary for operations. Do not ask employees about their health status or personal reasons just to expand the scope of analysis. In small organizations, it is important to broaden the scope of aggregation rather than excessively subdividing detailed groups to ensure that individual identities remain undisclosed.

🧭 One result as the starting point for the next round

This record shows operational results by employment type, but it does not capture how much participation rates changed after the notification method was altered. Therefore, rather than concluding that this result is a success or failure, it is better to view it as a starting point for determining what to verify in the next round. When comparing the same group, the target criteria and the participation aggregation period must also be aligned.

There may be more participants, but the participation rate may be low. It is not a matter of choosing which of the two numbers is correct. The number of people shows the actual scale of operations, and the ratio shows the extent to which the target audience was reached. Reading the two numbers together and creating an environment where employees can easily participate—this is the reason we are sharing results by employment type.

Recommended Posts

Case Study of Walking Challenge Operation at Two General Hospitals
Challenge Board User Guide

This report was compiled based on internal records of actual walking challenges at institutions and centers. Figures by group are presented as raw data, while total sums and participation rates are editorial calculations. Causal hypotheses and improvement plans were structured for practical application, and institution names and personally identifiable information have been excluded.