Honorable Mention Award 

The Motorola Communicators Campaign, in cooperation with the American Diabetes Association, helped participants improve their diabetes impaired health and reduce related absenteeism.  The program costs $34.09 per participant and produced corresponding savings of $571.20, and it substantially reduced absenteeism. 

Specific Program Strengths Included: 

Focus on a single disease, diabetes, with a highly targeted intervention which meets all review criteria.  There are high quality education and communication materials.  There is good methodology regarding the impact on absenteeism.  There is an appropriate diabetes self-care emphasis, well developed goals, and a support group design.  That the program is based in theory is a strength. 

This is a high risk chronic disease intervention focusing on diabetes.  The intervention consists of a support group meeting every two weeks.  Local professionals are used.  Diabetics set improvement goals and learn about self-management.  Social and emotional support are also included as important dimensions, as well as considerations of quality of life.  The theoretical basis is Orem’s Theory of Self-Care.  The program received the American Diabetes Association recognition.  It is open to family members and retirees.  There are big differences in absenteeism rates. 

Concerns Noted Included: 

Cost reduction emphasis is somewhat weak.  There is a small study with no statistics reported and a relatively low response rate for the questionnaire.  The program was effective for many diabetic participants, but not a small sub-set with severe disease complications.  However, outcome analyses are very clear in recognizing this problem.  With a response rate of 27% it is hard to generalize results.  The program results are encouraging, but they should be considered only as preliminary.  The inability to measure absenteeism (because of the change in attendance policy) prevents drawing conclusions about changes.  Using visits to health resources as a measure of productivity is too limited.  The absence of a comparison or control group prevents us from separating program effects from other causes of changes.  Estimates appear perhaps too optimistic based on the small sample size and short duration of the program, and the small number of participants (39) upon which the evaluation is based.  Part of the evaluation is based on a survey with only 14 respondents.