Working document for HR, safety, staff committee, data protection and finance
Introducing a health programme: decide, plan, deliver
This page is not a brochure. It is the paper you pass on internally, to your data protection leads, the staff committee, facilities and finance. Each role will find the question it actually asks and an answer it can reuse without a meeting.
We promise no participation rate and no return. We show you the arithmetic, the time and space needed, the metrics we can legitimately claim credit for, and the twelve mistakes that regularly sink programmes like this.
As at September 2026. Next review: Q1 2027, when the Job Stress Index 2026 is published.
- 42%of Swiss businesses have nobody with professional responsibility for corporate health managementamong those with 10 to 49 employees 53%; Health Promotion Switzerland, Faktenblatt 116, 2025, data 2024
- 17 to 23participants are seen at one screening station in a working daydepending on appointment length, 20 or 15 minutes respectively, after deducting set-up, breaks and buffer; you do the calculation yourself in chapter 4
- 3 to 5months from decision to first screening dayPlanning figure derived from the phase durations in chapter 3, not a study finding
At a glance
- This page is built to be forwarded. Nine roles, nine questions, nine answers.
- Capacity is arithmetic, not something to negotiate. The planner shows the formula and includes your staff's working time in the calculation.
- Put the data protection documents in the first quote, not in the contract. Data protection questions raised too late stop more programmes than tight budgets do.
- Participation is not something you can promise. It follows from lead time, sender, working time and booking route.
- Metrics in three tiers, with a clear line between what can be attributed to us and what we merely report.
- Twelve mistakes, each with a remedy, and a list of provider questions that we must be ready to answer ourselves.
Where you stand before you start
Workplace health is no longer uncharted territory in Switzerland: three quarters of businesses already do something. So the question is rarely ‘should we do this at all?’ and almost always ‘is what we do systematic enough to defend?’
Forward this page to
How widespread is corporate health management in Switzerland?
Together, these four figures explain why an internal health day often fails before it begins: not for lack of will and rarely for lack of budget, but because nobody has the job of seeing it through. If you forward this page, that is the sentence to send with it.
What businesses themselves name as their greatest need
51% of businesses name raising awareness of stress and mental health as an area needing investment, well ahead of all other topics. Around 60% want to engage more in corporate health management in future. At the same time, use of external services is falling: only 45% of businesses use any in 2024, and just under 20% of small businesses. In the subsample excluding small businesses, the figure has fallen from 65% in both 2016 and 2020 to 55%.
Source: Health Promotion Switzerland, Wie verbreitet ist betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement in der Schweiz? Monitoring-Ergebnisse 2024, Faktenblatt 116 (2025, data 2024)
The German comparison figure, labelled as such
How much budget do organisations have for health promotion?
What this means for your planning: if half the market is below €10,000, the realistic starting point is one site, one module, one or two screening days. Planning a multi-year group programme before the first day has happened is the surest way never to start.
Who decides with you, and what each role needs to know
Beyond a few thousand francs, a health programme is not something one person signs off alone. Nine roles usually sit in the room or can stop the project. Each asks a different question. This chapter is designed so that you can forward any single card.
Head of HR / People & Culture
- The question they ask
- ‘Can we justify this internally without getting questions we cannot answer?’
- The honest answer
- Yes, if you have three things in writing before you start: the data protection documents, a realistic effort estimate in person-days and a statement of what you will not measure. This page provides all three. What it cannot give you is a commitment on participation rate or return.
- What they can block
- practically everything, usually as the sponsor
HR business partner / corporate health management lead
- The question they ask
- ‘How much internal work is this really, and when do I need to start on what?’
- The honest answer
- The process with phase durations is in chapter 3, the communication plan in chapter 7. The biggest internal workload is not the screening day but the communication beforehand and freeing up the rooms. Both need to start earlier than most plans assume.
- What they can block
- the schedule
Executive management and finance
- The question they ask
- ‘What does it cost, and how much of that can be evidenced?’
- The honest answer
- There are two parts to the cost: the provider's price and your staff's working time. The planner in chapter 4 calculates the second, because quotes routinely leave it out. On evidence: we do not promise a return, and the business case dossier explains why. In Switzerland there is also no health insurance subsidy to bring the bill down: here is why.
- What they can block
- the budget
Safety officers / ASA specialists
- The question they ask
- ‘Is this an obligation, and does it overlap with our occupational medicine?’
- The honest answer
- No, and no. A voluntary screening is not an occupational health examination. It fulfils no obligation under the Employment Act (EmpA) or the Ordinance on the Prevention of Accidents and Occupational Diseases (OPA), and it does not create a new one. When to call in occupational physicians and occupational safety specialists is governed by the ASA directive (EKAS Directive 6508): a health day does not replace that, and is not replaced by it. The legal boundary is set out in detail in the chapter ‘The boundary’ of the legal dossier.
- What they can block
- the scope
Data protection officers
- The question they ask
- ‘Will our company become the controller of health data?’
- The honest answer
- No. The employer receives no individual results and does not even find out who took part, because booking does not go through HR. This is not company policy but follows from Art. 328b of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) in conjunction with Art. 362 para. 2 CO and from medical confidentiality. The full derivation, with articles and Fedlex links, is in the legal dossier. Ask for the documents with the first quote rather than the contract: that is mistake number 1.
- What they can block
- the whole project
Staff committee and employee representatives
- The question they ask
- ‘Is this really voluntary, and will anyone be put at a disadvantage?’
- The honest answer
- Voluntary means no list of participants goes to the employer, no disadvantage for not taking part, no incentives that create pressure in practice, and participation in paid working time. Employee representatives' involvement in health protection is enshrined in law, and they belong in the steering group from phase 0, not in a late consultation. Details: what ‘voluntary’ must mean legally, and the participation rights.
- What they can block
- legitimacy, and with it participation
IT and information security
- The question they ask
- ‘Where is the data, who processes it, and does this need our network?’
- The honest answer
- Nothing is needed from you on the screening day itself: devices work offline wherever possible. If a device does transmit data, that must be covered in the data protection plan and reach your desk before the date is set. Ask about hosting location, sub-processors and technical safeguards; the answers are in the legal dossier.
- What they can block
- technical approval
Facilities and site management
- The question they ask
- ‘Which rooms do you need, for how long, and what disrupts operations?’
- The honest answer
- One lockable room per station that cannot be seen into or overheard, available about an hour before the first and 45 minutes after the last appointment, plus a waiting area outside the open-plan space. Chapter 5 has the full specification, formatted for printing.
- What they can block
- the appointments
Line managers
- The question they ask
- ‘How much time does my team lose, and how do I cover it?’
- The honest answer
- For each participant it is the appointment length plus travel and waiting time, usually 25 to 30 minutes in total. The planner in chapter 4 adds this up for your site. The most effective lever for participation is also in your hands: teams whose managers book an appointment themselves show noticeably different participation from teams whose managers do not.
- What they can block
- actual attendance
The order is the trick
Data protection and the staff committee belong in the first round, not the last. Either can stop the project completely, and both almost always do so when they are asked late and presented with a fait accompli. Facilities and line managers also need to be involved early, because they decide on appointments and on actual attendance.
The process, with realistic durations
The standard cycle is preparation, needs analysis, planning, implementation, evaluation. What matters is the durations, not the names. For a first run at one site, they add up to around 10 to 22 weeks before the first screening day.
Preparation and legitimation
Written objectives and backing from executive management. Set up a steering group: HR, a member of executive management, occupational safety, the staff committee and, where there is one, the data protection function. What matters is that members are allowed to decide in their own area. Set the budget, sites, languages and target group.
Needs analysis
Use what you already have first. And only in aggregated form.
- Absence statistics by site, area and duration category
- Age and gender structure of the workforce, because it determines which modules are indicated at all
- Load profile of the jobs: screen work, shifts, physical load, driving, standing occupations
- Existing employee surveys and engagement items
- Turnover and recruitment data
- Where none of this exists: an anonymous needs survey, not guesswork
Individual health data may never be used for a needs analysis. Insurance data is acceptable only in aggregated form and only above the minimum group size.
Planning
Choose modules to fit your actual profile, not a catalogue. Fix the appointments and slot grid. Confirm in writing that participation takes place in paid working time. Book rooms firmly. Produce and translate communication materials. Set up the booking system. And make sure the data protection documents are finished and approved before the first announcement goes out.
Delivery
The screening day itself. Capacity, rooms and process are in chapter 4 and chapter 5.
Evaluation and follow-up
Aggregated report to the steering group, participant feedback, decisions for the next cycle. What may and may not appear in the report is in chapter 7 of the legal dossier.
Further development
If the aggregated report shows a cluster of strain in one area, the answer is to change working conditions there, not to run another workshop. This point is uncomfortable, which is why it is the most important in this chapter.
Where the ‘3 to 5 months’ come from
The sum of phases 1 to 3 gives 10 to 22 weeks. This is a planning figure based on experience, not a study finding. It applies to a first run at one site. Several sites, several languages or shift work mainly lengthen phase 3.
Who does what
| Phase | HR and steering group | Provider | Site and line |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Goals, committee, budget, mandate | Feasibility, module proposal, data protection documents | Site list, rough appointment windows |
| Needs analysis | Provide aggregated data | Analysis, module recommendation with evidence status | Load profile of the jobs |
| Planning | Approvals, working time rule in writing | Slot grid, booking system, materials | Rooms confirmed, access, parking |
| Communication | Arrange a sender, open channels | Texts, translations, booking link | Notice for non-office staff, shift information |
| Delivery | no role at reception | Reception, examination, findings, escalation | Opening rooms, cleaning, waste disposal |
| Evaluation | Receive report, decide on measures | Aggregated report, confirmation of deletion | Implementing structural measures |
Capacity: how many days you really need
The most common mistake in planning a health day is capacity: too few station days are booked, the slots are gone within two days, and half the workforce misses out. The arithmetic is simple enough to do yourself.
How many participants can a screening station handle?
Participants per station per day = operating hours × 60 ÷ appointment length × efficiency factor
At 15 to 20 minutes per appointment, that is 3 to 4 people per hour and station. Over a seven-hour operating day, this gives 21 to 28 appointments in the grid. After set-up, breaks, overruns and changeovers, that leaves around 17 participants per station per day with 20-minute appointments and around 23 with 15-minute ones.
A worked example: 200 employees at one site, target participation 50%, so 100 participants. With 20-minute appointments, that is 6 station days, which with two stations running in parallel means three calendar days on site. With 15-minute appointments, it is 5 station days. Anyone who allows a single day with one station for this has planned for 17 people and will let 83 down.
Screening day planner
The planner runs the formula above for your figures and also shows the total working time your workforce spends. That time is a real cost, and almost every quote we have seen leaves it out. Nothing is stored or transmitted.
The formula
Participants per station and day = operating hours × 60 ÷ appointment length × 85% efficiency factor (set-up, breaks, buffer, overruns)
7.0 × 60 ÷ 20 × 0.85 = 17 participants per station and day
Result: your planning figures
Two figures are your decision, not our commitment: the target participation rate (see chapter 6) and the number of parallel stations, which is limited by the rooms available (see chapter 5).
What you need on site
This checklist is built to be printed and passed on to Facilities. This is not cosmetic: a room that cannot be locked, or where conversations can be overheard, is a legal problem, not a comfort issue. A medical consultation must not be overheard.
Room and infrastructure, per station
- A lockable room per screening station that cannot be seen into or overheard
- A table, three chairs and a couch for ultrasound and vein examinations
- Power sockets near the equipment; for ultrasound, a stable surface and a room that can be darkened
- Hand-washing facilities in the room or close by
- A waiting area away from the open-plan office. A queue visible to everyone costs participation
- Step-free access for equipment trolleys, lift access, a loading and unloading point and a parking space for the equipment vehicle
- Network access only if a device strictly needs it. Offline-capable devices are preferred; if a device transmits data, that belongs in the data protection plan
- Cleaning and disposal, including any medical waste, agreed with Facilities in advance
- Signage in all languages used at the site
- Room available from about an hour before the first appointment until about 45 minutes after the last
Booking and process
| Rule | Why it is legally necessary | Why it increases participation |
|---|---|---|
| Booking directly with the provider, never via HR | A participation list held by the employer is itself health data by inference | People who have to register with HR register less often. Anonymity drives participation |
| Named appointments in the person's own calendar | No legal requirement | Turns a vague invitation into a commitment. The biggest single lever for a screening day |
| Participation in paid working time, in writing | Participation is only voluntary, without disadvantage, if nobody has to give up their own time | Anything else limits participation to the minority who are motivated anyway |
| Waiting list and buffer slots on the day | No legal requirement | Absorbs cancellations, and visible free capacity draws in the undecided |
| Reception by the provider's team, not by HR | HR must not find out who attends. Structural separation beats a promise | Lowers the barrier at the most visible point of the day |
| Shift operations: covering the handover windows | No disadvantage to particular groups of employees through appointment timing | Reaches the groups with the highest absence figures in the first place |
Source: Swiss Code of Obligations, SR 220, Art. 328 and Art. 328b (Fedlex, as at 2026)The full legal derivation, including medical confidentiality and minimum group size, is set out in the dossier on data protection and law.
Participation: what is realistic, and what drives it
The only honest statement about participation is this: somewhere between a third and two thirds, and where you land depends on factors you control. Anyone who promises you a figure has either stretched the definition or will disappoint you.
How high is participation in clinical screenings?
How often are workplace health promotion measures offered and used?
How high is the participation rate for screening?
Why people do not take part
The HR trade press has identified seven recurring barriers in the BIBB/BAuA data. We cite them for context, not as a primary finding of our own:
- People do not see why it matters, because the message is lost in the flood of email
- People assume health promotion means fitness classes or lectures, and reject it before looking at what is actually on offer
- Seen as an additional burden in an already full working day
- Managers do not take part themselves or play the programme down. That strips it of legitimacy
- Rigid appointment times and a poorly guided online booking process
- Stigma: taking part in anything on stress is seen as admitting you are not coping
- Offers do not match the actual demands of the job
Source: Haufe (HR trade press), Hürden der Teilnahme: warum Beschäftigte BGF-Angebote meiden (2025)Trade-press synthesis of the BIBB/BAuA data, not a study design of its own.
What actually raises participation
Practical experience, not study results
The points below come from practice, not from a controlled study. We say so because otherwise they would look like evidence, and they are not.
- Appointments booked by name in the person's own calendar, not an open time window
- Participation in paid working time, expressly released in writing
- Managers book first. This is the lever HR underestimates and the workforce notices immediately
- Two to three waves of communication over at least two channels, including a physical channel for staff who do not work at a computer
- A named human sender, the executive management or the site management, not a generic HR address
- Material in all languages used at the site
- Visibility on site, and a waiting area where nobody feels uncomfortable sitting
- Anonymity by design: no participation list passed to the employer, booking with the provider
What we deliberately do not write here
We do not publish an average participation rate or a no-show rate of our own, because we have not published the underlying data. Ask every provider for both figures and for the definition behind them. That includes us.
The communication pack: three waves
With under three weeks' lead time, expect weak turnout. Three waves, two channels, one named sender. The booking link always goes to the provider and never to an HR mailbox.
- Wave 1, 4 to 6 weeks before
Announcement
Sender: executive management or site management, by name. Content: what is on offer, that participation is voluntary and takes place during working hours, and a clear statement that the employer receives no individual results.
Aim: awareness. No booking yet, otherwise the attention fizzles out before booking opens.
- Wave 2, about 3 weeks before
Booking opens
Sender: the person responsible for corporate health management, by name and with a face. Content: booking link to the provider, slot overview, duration of each appointment, what to bring, languages.
Aim: appointments in people's diaries. Same week: line managers book first and tell their teams.
- Wave 3, about 3 days before
Reminder
Sender: as wave 2. Content: remaining free slots, location, directions within the building, a note on buffer slots for those who decide at short notice.
Aim: fill the remaining capacity and absorb cancellations. Physical notice for staff who do not work at a computer.
The rules that apply across all three waves
- The booking route leads to the provider, never to HR. That is a data protection requirement and a participation driver at the same time
- At least two channels, plus a physical one for employees who do not work at a computer
- Every language used at the site. German-only material at a French-speaking site is not a cost saving, it is exclusion
- The same sentence in every wave: no individual results to the employer, no participation list, no disadvantage for not taking part
- Shift operations need their own time windows and their own channels, not the same email an hour later
What happens afterwards: findings, referral, report
This is the part that decides the value of the whole exercise, and the one quotes most often leave out. A finding without a named next step is worse than no screening: it creates worry without benefit.
For the participant
- The result goes directly to the person, and only to them
- A written result document in plain language that they can take to their GP
- For every finding, a named next step: GP, specialist, cantonal programme or expressly 'no action needed'
- An escalation protocol for acute findings, such as sharply raised blood pressure: who does what, and how the person gets into care the same day without the employer being informed
- An optional, voluntary follow-up after about three months asking whether the recommendation was acted on. Anonymous and evaluated in aggregate only
- No feedback loop to the employer in either direction.
What does screening do for access to primary care?
The methodologically strongest study of an employer health programme found that such programmes increase the share of employees who have a GP at all. For someone without a GP, that is the single greatest benefit of a screening day, and one of the few effects that could be shown reliably.
What a screening can achieve, and what it cannot
Clinical honesty
We do not claim that offering screening prevents disease or prolongs life. A Cochrane review of 15 trials with 251,891 participants concludes that general health checks probably do not reduce mortality. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force rates thyroid screening in adults without symptoms as grade D (recommended against) and visual skin cancer examination as grade I (the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion).
What the evidence supports is access: offering screening at the workplace increases the number of people who have an examination at all. That is why we talk about access and links to primary care, not about cure rates.
Source: Krogsbøll LT et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD009009.pub3, General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease (2019)as well as U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Thyroid Cancer: Screening (2017, grade D) and Skin Cancer: Screening (2023, grade I).
For the employer
An aggregated report within four to six weeks of the screening, a year-on-year comparison from the second year and a three-year trend from the third. Breakdowns by department or site are given only above the minimum group size. A report on a department of four people identifies individuals. That is a legal breach and destroys trust for good. What may appear in such a report is set out in the legal dossier.
Metrics: three tiers, kept clearly apart
Three tiers, and a limit we state openly. This separation is why our reports are slimmer than some competitors' and why they stand up to scrutiny.
Tier 1: process metrics
Fully attributable- Slot utilisation: booked versus offered appointments
- Participation rate: participants versus eligible workforce, by site, shift and department, aggregated above the minimum group size
- Reach within the target group, for example the share of over-50s in an age-indicated module
- No-show rate
- Participant satisfaction with the programme
- Repeat participation in the following year
Tier 2: outcome metrics at participant level
Attributable, reportable in aggregate only- Share of participants with a finding that needs follow-up
- Share with a newly discovered risk factor they did not know about before
- Share who have a GP. The value that such programmes demonstrably move
- Share who report after three months that they acted on the recommendation. Self-reported, voluntary, anonymous
- Distribution of risk factors compared with the Swiss population reference
Tier 3: organisational metrics
Reported, not attributed- Absence rate over time
- Turnover and retention
- eNPS and survey items on 'my employer cares about my health'
- Application numbers and employer brand metrics
We report tier 3 metrics, but we do not claim that we caused them. A single company without a control group cannot show that, and anyone who claims otherwise is massaging the numbers.
Why the absence rate is the wrong lead metric
How large are the productivity losses from presenteeism and absenteeism?
The metric your finance function tracks captures the smaller half of the problem. Anyone who reads attendance as health is measuring the wrong thing. The business case dossier gives the full context, and the figures dossier the Swiss key figures.
From occasion to programme: three years
A single health day cannot show an effect, because a single event has no trajectory. That is exactly what then confirms the belief that corporate health management achieves nothing. A robust structure takes three years.
- 1
Build and measure
Needs analysis, steering group, one to two modules matching the workforce profile, first aggregated report as a baseline, participation baseline, communication infrastructure.
- 2
Broaden and deepen
Additional modules drawn from the first year's findings, a workshop series on the biggest aggregated stress issue, a second measurement wave, the first year-on-year comparison and roll-out to further sites.
- 3
Embed and change conditions
Structural measures drawn from two years of aggregate data, a leadership programme, a digital service for distributed workforces, three-year trend and, where appropriate, the Friendly Work Space label as an external quality anchor.
Workshops, honestly assessed
What effect do individual health interventions have?
A study of over 46,000 employees in 233 organisations found no measurable wellbeing benefit for interventions aimed at the individual, such as resilience training, mindfulness and stress management.
What follows: a single workshop raises awareness; it is not a health measure. Present it internally as such. A workshop is more likely to achieve something if it is part of a series rather than a one-off, runs alongside a leadership programme, is tied to a real change in working conditions, uses small groups, is voluntary with no participation list and takes place during working hours.
Friendly Work Space as an external anchor
Which criteria apply to Friendly Work Space?
The Swiss label for systematically implemented corporate health management is awarded by Health Promotion Switzerland. Assessment is based on 14 criteria, divided into the two areas 'steering' and 'implementation' and into five topic areas. The label is valid for three years, after which it is reassessed.
The practical value for you lies less in the award than in the framework. It gives your internal case an externally defined structure, and a single procurement has its place within it.
What typically goes wrong
Ordered by how often they actually make a programme fail. This chapter is why the page is worth forwarding: it takes the sting out of objections in advance.
- Data protection is raised too late
The data protection function or the staff committee sees the plan two weeks before the date and stops it. Remedy: the data protection package goes out with the first quote, not with the contract.
- Communication starts too late or comes from the wrong person
With under three weeks' lead time, expect weak turnout. Remedy: three waves from six weeks before, with a named sender from management.
- It is unclear whether appointments fall within working hours
Nobody uses their lunch break for a conversation about bowel cancer screening. Remedy: a written release from executive management, repeated in every communication wave.
- Managers do not take part
The workforce takes that as the real signal. This point is named as a barrier in the BIBB/BAuA analyses. Remedy: every team leader books their own appointment first and tells their team.
- No path after the finding
People receive a finding and then nothing happens. That is worse than no screening because it creates worry without benefit, and that is exactly what the screening literature warns against. Remedy: a named next step for every finding, see chapter 8.
- The rooms are wrong
No lockable room, no quiet, the queue visible to the whole floor. Remedy: the room checklist in chapter 5 goes to Facilities early, with a binding reply.
- The programme is bought as an event, not as a cycle
Only about a quarter of organisations in German-speaking countries have a holistic approach to corporate health management. Individual events cannot show an effect, which then confirms the belief that corporate health management achieves nothing. Remedy: the three-year structure in chapter 10, even if year 1 is small.
- The aggregated report is too granular
A report on a department of four people identifies individuals. That is a legal breach and destroys trust for good. Remedy: set the minimum group size in writing in advance, see the legal dossier.
- The internal business case promises a return
And then it cannot be shown. That is how corporate health management budgets get cut in year two, and the cause is usually the provider's marketing. Remedy: the metrics model in chapter 9 and the state of the evidence in the business case dossier.
- No structural consequence
The report shows strain concentrated in one area, the response is another mindfulness workshop, nothing changes, and credibility is spent. Remedy: structural prevention is part of the brief, not an afterthought.
- Language
German-language material at a French- or Italian-speaking site, or in a workforce with a high share of non-German-speaking employees. Remedy: put the languages in the procurement contract, not in the project plan.
- Shift and non-office staff are excluded by appointment timing
This systematically excludes the very groups with the highest absence figures: in 2024, health-related absences among workers in elementary occupations averaged 13.5 days per full-time post, against 5.4 days in information and communication. Remedy: cover handover windows, separate channels, separate slots.
Source: Federal Statistical Office (FSO), Labour Volume Statistics (AVOL), Absences (2025, data 2024)The figure of about a quarter of organisations with holistic corporate health management comes from #whatsnext 2025 (German data); the barrier 'managers do not take part' comes from the BIBB/BAuA analysis. Both sources are in the list of sources.
Provider selection: the questions to ask every provider
This list is deliberately worded neutrally. It is built so that we have to answer it ourselves, and several of its questions are uncomfortable for part of the market. That is exactly what makes it useful.
Twelve questions
- Show us an anonymised sample report, the way we would receive it.
- What is your minimum group size for subgroup evaluations, and where is it set out in writing?
- Will we receive a deletion confirmation with a deadline? What is the deadline?
- Who binds your non-medical staff to confidentiality, and how?
- What was your average participation rate over the last twelve months, and how do you define 'participation'?
- What is your no-show rate, and how do you absorb it?
- Does booking run through you or through our HR? If through us: why?
- Which languages do the material, booking, staff and result documents cover, and for which sites?
- What qualifications does the examining staff hold, and how is professional liability insurance covered?
- What does your escalation protocol for an acute finding look like, and who is responsible for it?
- What happens contractually if slot utilisation falls short, and how late can appointments be postponed?
- Which modules do you not recommend to us, and why?
The documents you must be able to present internally
- Data protection plan with legal basis, data categories and roles
- Role analysis: processing on behalf or independent controllership for the medical data, with reasoning
- Consent form in every language used at the site, revocable
- Participant information in plain language
- Anonymised sample evaluation report
- Proof of qualifications, professional liability insurance, confidentiality undertakings, including for non-medical staff
- Deletion plan and deletion confirmation with deadline
- Hygiene, emergency and incident plan for on-site work
- Service description: slot length, staffing ratio, cancellations, equipment specification
- References and, if possible, a reference call
- Communication package in all site languages
A note on certificates
In Germany, the Central Prevention Testing Body (Zentrale Prüfstelle Prävention, ZPP) offers a certification that buyers use as a guide. Switzerland has no counterpart. Look instead for the Swiss professional licence of the examining staff, a confidentiality undertaking and alignment with the Friendly Work Space label. Anyone who sells you a German certification as proof of Swiss quality is confusing two legal systems.
The twelve objections, and honest answers
In the order in which they actually arise. None of it is softened, and three of the answers are uncomfortable for us as a provider.
This is the most common reason a programme fails, and it deserves an architecture rather than reassurance. The findings are covered by medical confidentiality between the participant and the examining doctor. The employer is not involved.
Ask for five documents with the first quote: data protection plan, consent declaration, participant information, deletion plan and an anonymised sample report. The full legal derivation is in the legal dossier.
No. That is not a courtesy but mandatory law. Art. 328b CO limits what an employer may process at all, and under Art. 362 para. 2 CO any deviation to the employees' detriment is void even with their consent.
You receive only aggregated evaluations, above a minimum group size. This structural impossibility is also the most effective driver of participation there is: people take part because their employer cannot find out, not because it chooses not to.
No, because you do not find out. Every finding leads to a named next step for the person concerned: GP, specialist, cantonal programme or expressly 'no action needed'.
For an acute finding, such as sharply raised blood pressure, there is an escalation protocol that gets the person into care the same day. Even then, the employer is not informed. There is no feedback loop to the employer, in either direction.
We will not give you a guarantee. The published benchmarks and the factors that influence them are in chapter 6. A realistic range is roughly a third to two thirds.
Anyone who promises you 80% has either stretched the definition of 'participation' or will disappoint you.
Participants times appointment length plus travel and waiting time, plus the internal project effort. The planner in chapter 4 calculates the first part and shows it in person-days.
This time belongs on the cost side. The only genuine Swiss economic evaluation of corporate health management included it; most of the industry's return calculations do not.
We do not promise you a return, and we explain at length why: in the business case dossier.
The short version: the widespread return figures do not stand up to scrutiny. What does stand up is access. Screening at the workplace increases the number of people who get a preventive examination at all, and the share of employees who have a GP.
Yes, and that is exactly the point. Screening at the workplace does not replace primary care. It closes the gap in access to it for people who would otherwise never book an appointment.
The greatest single benefit is for people without a GP. It is one of the few results that the best-designed randomised study of employer programmes found reliably.
That is a different legal category with a different purpose. In occupational health checks, Suva gives the order, the findings go to Suva, and the employer is told only whether the person is fit, conditionally fit or unfit.
A voluntary screening is not a preventive examination. It does not fulfil any duty under the EmpA or the OPA nor does it create one. The legal dossier sets the two side by side.
In three tiers, kept cleanly separate. The full model is in chapter 9.
The decisive sentence from it: we report tier 3 metrics, but we do not claim that we caused them. A single company without a control group cannot show that.
That depends on when you ask. Employee involvement in health protection is enshrined in law and belongs in the steering group from phase 0, not in a late consultation.
Pre-empt the question with material addressed to employees, not management, and a written assurance that no individual data goes to the employer.
A legitimate commercial question, and one on which most contracts are silent. Settle it in writing before you sign: what happens if slot utilisation falls short, how unused station days are treated and how late appointments can be postponed.
We do not publish a standard clause here because it depends on scope and number of sites. But it is on the provider question list, and that includes us.
In Switzerland this is a core question, not a side issue. German-only material at a French- or Italian-speaking site is mistake number 11 in chapter 11.
Ask for a written commitment stating the languages in which the material, booking system, staff and result documents are available, and which appointments are guaranteed for which sites. Ask every provider, including us.
Sources
Every figure on this page can be traced to one of these sources. Anything we could not check against the primary document for this page is left out.
- Health Promotion Switzerland Wie verbreitet ist betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement in der Schweiz? Monitoring-Ergebnisse 2024, Faktenblatt 116 2025, data 20241,159 businesses with 10 or more employees out of 4,446 contacted, response rate 26%, fieldwork May to July 2024. Survey conducted by YouGov Schweiz, analysis by the Institute for Mental and Organisational Health at the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland. The detailed results report is Füllemann et al. (2025).https://gesundheitsfoerderung.ch/sites/default/files/2025-04/Faktenblatt_116_GFCH_2025-04_-_BGM_in_Schweizer_Betrieben.pdf
- Techniker Krankenkasse, IFBG and Haufe #whatsnext 2025, Erfolgsfaktoren im betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagement 2025, data 2025n = 1,529 organisations, of which 974 commercial companies and 445 public sector institutions, survey conducted January to February 2025. German data, in euros and under German social law.https://www.tk.de/resource/blob/2197646/74c9dbc71dac772c8cd5d7bb71d2729b/whatsnext-2025-data.pdf
- Mattke S et al., RAND Corporation, RR-254-DOL Workplace Wellness Programs Study: Final Report 2013Study commissioned by the US Department of Labor and the US Department of Health. US employer programmes; the absolute figures cannot be applied to Switzerland.https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR254.html
- Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), baua: Fakten BIBB/BAuA-Erwerbstätigenbefragung: Betriebliche Gesundheitsförderung 2022, data 2018n = 17,787 people in employment in Germany. German data. We could not check the results of the 2024 survey wave against the primary document for this page and they therefore do not appear on it.https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/Fakten/BIBB-BAuA-41.pdf
- Jones D, Molitor D, Reif J, Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(4):1747-1791 What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study 2019Randomised controlled trial, n = 4,834, employer with over 12,000 employees, participation rate over 56%, preregistered (AEARCTR-0001368).https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/4/1747/5550759
- Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), report by ZHAW WIG, University of Lucerne and BFH Kosten der übertragbaren und nichtübertragbaren Krankheiten sowie Kosten der Risikofaktoren Übergewicht/Adipositas und Bewegungsmangel in der Schweiz, Schlussbericht Version 2.0 2025, data 2022Human capital approach. For lack of a statistic of its own, presenteeism was estimated solely from the job stress survey; 41.2% of presenteeism losses could not be attributed to a cause.https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/de/sd-web/8GeOHCgqQkN0/kosten-ncd-in-der-schweiz.pdf
- Federal Statistical Office (FSO) Labour Volume Statistics (AVOL), Absences 2025, data 2024https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/arbeit-erwerb/erwerbstaetigkeit-arbeitszeit/arbeitszeit/absenzen.html
- Fleming WJ, Industrial Relations Journal 55(2):162-182 Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions 2024Cross-sectional study of over 46,000 employees in 233 organisations. Not randomised: self-selection cannot be ruled out.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irj.12418
- Initiative Gesundheit und Arbeit (iga), Sockoll I, Kramer I, Bödeker W iga-Report 13: Wirksamkeit und Nutzen betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention, Evidenz 2000 bis 2006 2008, data 2000 to 2006https://www.von-herzen-gesund.de/wp-content/uploads/iga-Report_13_Wirksamkeit_Gesundheitsfoerderung_Praevention_Betrieb.pdf
- Krogsbøll LT et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD009009.pub3 General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease 201915 studies, 251,891 participants.https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub3/full
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Thyroid Cancer: Screening, recommendation grade D 2017https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/thyroid-cancer-screening
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Skin Cancer: Screening, recommendation grade I 2023https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/skin-cancer-screening
- Health Promotion Switzerland Friendly Work Space: das Label und seine Qualitätskriterien 2026Retrieved in September 2026. The number of certified organisations is not given on the label page, so it does not appear here.https://friendlyworkspace.ch/de/das-label
- Federal Coordination Commission for Occupational Safety (FCOS) Richtlinie Nr. 6508 über den Beizug von Arbeitsärztinnen und Arbeitsärzten und anderen Spezialistinnen und Spezialisten der Arbeitssicherheit (ASA-Richtlinie) 2025, dated 14 December 2006, as at 23 October 2025Gives concrete form to Art. 11a OPA. Under Art. 52a para. 2 OPA, following an FCOS directive creates a presumption that the provisions it spells out are met; the directive is not itself directly binding law.https://www.ekas.admin.ch/fileadmin/Dokumente/Richtlinien/gueltig/06508_d_2025_10_23.pdf
- Swiss Confederation, Fedlex Obligationenrecht (OR), SR 220, Art. 328 und Art. 328b 2026Employer's duty of care and the limit on data processing in the employment relationship.https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/27/317_321_377/de
- Haufe (HR trade press) Hürden der Teilnahme: warum Beschäftigte BGF-Angebote meiden 2025Trade-press synthesis of the BIBB/BAuA data, not a study design of its own. Cited for context, not as a primary finding.https://www.haufe.de/arbeitsschutz/gesundheit-umwelt/huerden-der-teilnahme-warum-beschaeftigte-bgf-angebote-meiden_94_679058.html
What we deliberately left out
- The results of the 2024 BIBB/BAuA employment survey on participation in health promotion. They are widely quoted, but we could not check them against the primary document for this page, so we cite the 2018 survey instead.
- The number of organisations awarded the Friendly Work Space label. The label page does not give it.
- Prices and franc amounts per participant. There are no independent benchmarks for Switzerland; the figures that circulate come from providers' own statements.
- A participation rate or no-show rate of our own. We have not published the underlying data so we do not treat them as publishable metrics.
- Anything on the tax treatment of preventive examinations paid for by the employer, and on how they are declared on the salary certificate. This question is open, and we will publish nothing on it without written advice from a tax adviser.
- Details of funding from Health Promotion Switzerland for SMEs. We could not check the amounts and conditions against the primary document. For the Swiss funding position as a whole, see the business case dossier.
A note on the origin of the data
German surveys are marked as such on this page. Their direction carries over to Switzerland, but not their absolute values: social law, cost structure and wage levels differ, and in Germany the statutory health insurance funds are legally required to co-finance, which is not the case in Switzerland. This page explains processes and is not legal, tax or medical advice.