A surreal illustration depicting the challenges of workplace wellness programs.

Are Workplace 'Wellness' Programs a Trap? How Broad Definitions of Impairment Could Target Almost Anyone

Lena Voss in Health & Wellness June 2025 • 4 min read.

"A new study questions whether broad descriptions of 'impairment' used in physician health programs could lead to mislabeling and discrimination in the workplace."

In an era where workplace wellness programs are increasingly common, a new study raises critical questions about how 'impairment' is defined and whether these definitions could lead to unintended consequences. The research, originally focused on physician health programs (PHPs), reveals a concerning trend: descriptions of 'impairment' may be so broad that a significant portion of the general population could potentially be mislabeled.

Physician health programs (PHPs) are designed to support doctors struggling with mental health or substance use disorders. These programs often include lists of behaviors or conditions that could signal impairment. However, the study sheds light on a critical issue, are these signs too vague, turning everyday behaviors into grounds for suspicion?

This article explores the study's findings, discussing the potential for misapplication and the ethical considerations surrounding workplace wellness initiatives. It also looks at the role of key groups, and possible solutions to create a fairer, more supportive work environment.

The Problem with Broad Definitions of Impairment

A surreal illustration depicting the challenges of workplace wellness programs.

The study, published in the journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, investigated whether the descriptions of potential physician impairment used by PHPs in 23 states were overly broad. Researchers randomly selected 25 descriptions of impairment from various PHP websites and presented them anonymously to a sample of the general population through Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk).

Participants were divided into two groups: one received a narrowly worded version of the survey questions, while the other received a broadly worded version. The results were striking:

Narrowly Worded Version: 70.9% of respondents endorsed at least one description of impairment, and 59.2% endorsed more than one.
Broadly Worded Version: A staggering 96.9% endorsed at least one description, with 95.8% endorsing more than one.
Respondents in the broadly phrased version endorsed a median of 10 out of 25 (40%) descriptions.

These findings highlight a significant concern: when definitions of impairment are too broad, they risk mislabeling individuals who may not actually be experiencing performance issues or posing a risk to themselves or others. This raises the specter of potential discrimination and the erosion of trust in workplace wellness programs.

Toward Fairer and More Effective Workplace Wellness Programs

The study's authors call for a critical reevaluation of how impairment is defined and addressed in workplace wellness programs. They urge medical leaders, state medical societies, and other professional groups to cease disseminating overly broad descriptions of impairment and to align their policies with the ADA, which protects employees from unwarranted medical inquiries and evaluations. By embracing clearer, more objective standards, and fostering a culture of support rather than suspicion, organizations can create workplace wellness programs that truly benefit employees without risking discrimination or violating their rights.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What are the potential downsides of broad definitions of 'impairment' within workplace wellness programs?

Broad definitions of 'impairment' used in workplace wellness programs, as highlighted by the study, can lead to several problems. The most significant issue is the risk of mislabeling employees, where individuals are wrongly identified as impaired based on everyday behaviors. This mislabeling can lead to potential discrimination, impacting their job security, career advancement, and overall workplace experience. Additionally, it erodes trust in the programs themselves, making employees wary of participating. The study indicates that when definitions are too vague, a large percentage of the population could be incorrectly categorized, undermining the effectiveness and fairness of workplace wellness initiatives.

How does the study's methodology, using the 'broadly' and 'narrowly' worded versions of the survey, support its conclusions?

The study's methodology effectively demonstrates the impact of vague definitions. By comparing responses to 'narrowly' and 'broadly' worded descriptions of impairment, the study showcases how easily individuals can be caught in a wide net. The stark difference in endorsement rates—70.9% versus 96.9%—between the two versions of the survey illustrates that broader language captures a significantly larger segment of the population. This variance clearly shows that when the criteria for 'impairment' are ambiguous, they can encompass a vast range of behaviors and conditions, potentially leading to misidentification and unwarranted scrutiny of employees. The study used Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for the survey.

What role do Physician Health Programs (PHPs) play in this context, and how are they connected to workplace wellness programs?

Physician Health Programs (PHPs) are specifically designed to support doctors facing mental health or substance use disorders. The study focuses on PHPs because they often utilize lists of behaviors or conditions that could signal impairment. The connection to workplace wellness programs arises from the overlap in goals: both aim to identify and support individuals with potential health concerns. The study highlights the potential for the same broad definitions used in PHPs to be adopted in workplace wellness initiatives. This, in turn, raises concerns about the potential for misapplication, discrimination, and the need for clearer, more objective standards across all programs.

What actions are suggested to create fairer workplace wellness programs, based on the study's findings?

The study's authors advocate for several key actions to improve workplace wellness programs. Firstly, they urge a critical reevaluation of how 'impairment' is defined. Medical leaders, state medical societies, and other professional groups should cease disseminating overly broad descriptions of impairment. Secondly, they emphasize the importance of aligning policies with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), which protects employees from unwarranted medical inquiries and evaluations. Lastly, fostering a culture of support rather than suspicion is crucial. By adopting clearer, more objective standards and prioritizing employee well-being, organizations can create wellness programs that are both effective and fair, avoiding the pitfalls of mislabeling and discrimination.

How can the use of overly broad definitions of 'impairment' in workplace wellness initiatives potentially lead to discrimination?

Overly broad definitions of 'impairment' can inadvertently create opportunities for discrimination in workplace wellness initiatives. Because vague criteria can encompass a wide array of behaviors, both work-related and personal, employees might be unfairly targeted based on factors unrelated to their job performance or safety. If an employee is identified as 'impaired' based on ambiguous standards, they could face unwarranted medical evaluations, limitations on their job responsibilities, or even termination. This could disproportionately affect certain groups of employees. This environment of suspicion and misidentification could undermine the principles of fairness and equal opportunity, turning wellness initiatives into tools for discrimination rather than support.