Contact us

Trigo

“Before wellbeing programmes can improve organisational outcomes, employees must first choose to participate.”

Why engagement matters

Research consistently identifies employee engagement and sustained participation as critical determinants of workplace wellbeing programme success. Studies of workplace wellbeing and digital health interventions have repeatedly shown that providing access alone does not create behaviour change. Participation is the essential bridge between investment and impact.

The challenge facing employers

Many employers already provide access to wellbeing resources and support services. However, research into digital health interventions demonstrates that participant attrition is common. Sustaining engagement over time remains one of the biggest challenges facing workplace wellbeing initiatives.

The municipal pilot

The pilot was delivered across all municipal kindergarten locations using the Trigo supported self-care platform. Employees were encouraged to engage through behavioural nudges, challenges, gamification, rewards, progress tracking and motivational communications. The objective was not simply awareness. The objective was participation.

Participation across the workforce

Every participating location achieved employee activation. Approximately two-thirds of employees actively engaged with the programme. Participation increased during the pilot rather than declining after launch, suggesting that engagement became embedded within everyday working life.

From registration to behaviour change

The strongest findings related to employee behaviour rather than simple platform usage. More than 80% of participating employees recorded physical activity. Almost 80% achieved recognised WHO physical activity targets at least once. Nearly 90% engaged with routines designed to support positive habits. Almost half tracked sleep. Employees also engaged with hydration tracking, lifestyle assessments and personalised wellbeing tools.

Creating a culture of participation

The programme combined supported self-care with challenges, rewards, gamification and positive reinforcement. Employees were encouraged to set goals, track progress and receive recognition for positive actions. Healthy behaviours were made visible, achievable and rewarding.

Why this matters for employers

Norwegian policy and research consistently highlight the importance of prevention, workplace participation and early engagement. Although this pilot does not demonstrate reductions in sickness absence or organisational costs, it demonstrates that employees are willing to engage with supported self-care when the proposition is relevant, motivating and accessible.

The evolution towards a preventative health ecosystem

The pilot provides a foundation for a broader preventative health ecosystem. The long-term vision combines supported self-care, behavioural engagement, educational content, wellbeing monitoring, professional support and workforce participation initiatives within a single framework.

What employers can learn

The pilot answered an important question. Employees will participate. They will engage with positive health behaviours. They will return repeatedly. For employers seeking to strengthen workforce participation and preventative health, engagement is the foundation upon which future outcomes can be built.

Why this matters – at a glance

Conclusion

The pilot does not yet demonstrate reductions in sickness absence, healthcare utilisation or organisational costs. Those outcomes require further evaluation. What it does demonstrate is that employees are willing to engage with supported self-care when the experience is relevant, motivating and easy to access. For organisations seeking to strengthen workforce participation and preventative health, engagement is where meaningful change begins.

References

The Wellbeing Paradox

Over the past decade, employers have invested heavily in workforce wellbeing.

Yet despite this investment, many organisations continue to ask the same question:

“Why aren’t we seeing the results we expected?”

It is a reasonable question.

After all, if access to wellbeing support is improving, surely outcomes should improve too.

However, the evidence suggests that the relationship between availability and outcomes is far more complicated than many organisations assume.

The reality is that wellbeing programmes rarely fail because support does not exist.

More often, they fail because people do not engage with that support consistently enough to create meaningful change.

This distinction sits at the centre of a growing body of workplace wellbeing research and has significantly influenced the way we think about workforce health at Trigo.

The Assumption Most Wellbeing Programmes Make

Many workplace wellbeing initiatives are built around a simple assumption.

If services are made available, employees will use them.

The logic appears reasonable.

Provide access to:

and positive outcomes should follow.

The problem is that human behaviour rarely works this way.

Availability does not automatically create participation.

Participation does not automatically create behaviour change.

And behaviour change does not automatically create organisational outcomes.

Each stage requires deliberate effort.

The evidence increasingly suggests that many wellbeing programmes focus heavily on the first stage while paying insufficient attention to the others.

As a result, organisations often measure what they have provided rather than what employees are actually doing.

This creates what might be described as the wellbeing paradox.

What the Research Tells Us

A growing body of evidence has examined the effectiveness of workplace health interventions.

One of the most useful reviews comes from Howarth and colleagues (2018), who examined digital health interventions within workplace settings.

The review found evidence that digital interventions can positively influence health-related behaviours.

However, the authors also identified a recurring challenge.

Sustained engagement was often difficult to achieve.

This finding is important.

The issue was not necessarily the quality of the intervention itself.

The issue was participation.

Similar observations emerge from the work of Sevic and colleagues (2023), who reviewed eHealth interventions targeting employee health behaviours.

The review identified positive effects across multiple health-related outcomes but again highlighted engagement as a critical factor influencing effectiveness.

In simple terms: people must participate if programmes are to succeed.

This may seem self-evident, but it has significant implications for how organisations design wellbeing strategies.

Why Participation Matters More Than Access

One of the strongest themes emerging from the evidence base is that participation is often a leading indicator of success.

This idea appears repeatedly throughout the literature reviewed in this article series.

In Engagement Is Not Luck: What Digital Health Research Teaches Us About Behaviour Change, we explored how engagement influences behaviour change.

In Why Supported Self-Care Works Better Than Passive Treatment, we examined the role of supported self-care.

Both concepts depend upon participation.

The same principle applies within workforce wellbeing.

An employee cannot benefit from:

This may seem obvious.

Yet many organisations continue to evaluate wellbeing programmes according to availability rather than utilisation.

The evidence increasingly suggests that participation deserves equal attention.

Perhaps more.

What Successful Programmes Have in Common

Research by Shiri and colleagues (2023) provides additional insight into this challenge.

Their review examined workplace interventions designed to improve health and wellbeing among health and social care workers.

The findings suggested that interventions were often more successful when they:

This is an important observation.

The strongest programmes rarely rely upon a single intervention.

Instead, they create ecosystems of support.

These elements work together.

This mirrors a recurring theme across the wider evidence base.

The most effective interventions are often integrated interventions.

Why Information Rarely Changes Behaviour

Historically, many workplace wellbeing programmes focused heavily on awareness.

The assumption was simple.

If employees understand health risks, healthier behaviour will follow.

Research increasingly challenges this assumption.

Knowledge remains important.

However, knowledge alone rarely creates sustainable behaviour change.

Most employees already understand the importance of:

The challenge is not awareness.

The challenge is implementation.

This is where engagement becomes critical.

Research reviewed by Milne-Ives et al. (2023) demonstrates that people are more likely to remain involved when interventions include:

These mechanisms help bridge the gap between intention and action.

Without them, even well-designed wellbeing programmes may struggle to maintain momentum.

The Engagement Gap

At Trigo, we often describe this challenge as the engagement gap.

The gap between making support available and helping people participate.

Many wellbeing initiatives are designed around resources.

Far fewer are designed around engagement.

This distinction matters because engagement is often where outcomes begin.

Research reviewed by Edwards et al. (2016) and Alzghoul et al. (2024) suggests that behavioural reinforcement, progress visibility and recognition can positively influence participation.

These findings are particularly relevant within workplace settings.

The challenge is not simply creating support. The challenge is creating experiences that people return to.

Why Wellbeing Must Become Part of Everyday Work

Another important lesson emerging from workplace health research is that wellbeing cannot remain separate from everyday life.

Traditional programmes often operate on the periphery of organisational culture.

Employees are encouraged to engage when they have spare time.

The evidence increasingly suggests that participation improves when wellbeing becomes integrated into everyday routines.

This does not mean constant intervention.

It means creating opportunities for small, sustainable actions.

The most successful wellbeing strategies often focus less on dramatic transformation and more on consistent participation.

This aligns closely with the broader principles of supported self-care explored earlier in this article series.

Meaningful outcomes frequently emerge from small actions repeated consistently over time.

Why Employers Need Better Measures of Success

Many organisations continue to measure wellbeing programmes using relatively simple metrics.

These measures provide useful information.

However, they rarely tell the full story.

The evidence suggests that organisations should also pay attention to:

These measures often provide a better indication of whether meaningful behaviour change is occurring.

The distinction is important.

A programme can be popular without being effective.

Equally, a programme can generate meaningful outcomes without generating large volumes of activity.

Understanding this balance is becoming increasingly important for employers seeking value from wellbeing investments.

How This Influenced Trigo

The workplace wellbeing literature has had a significant influence on the development of the Trigo platform.

The evidence reviewed by Howarth et al. (2018), Sevic et al. (2023) and Shiri et al. (2023) repeatedly points towards a common conclusion.

This influenced several design principles within Trigo.

The objective is not simply to provide services. The objective is to help people remain involved. This distinction is fundamental.

The evidence suggests that outcomes emerge when people participate.

The platform is designed to support that participation.

From Wellbeing Programmes to Wellbeing Systems

Perhaps the most important lesson emerging from the research is that organisations should stop thinking exclusively in terms of wellbeing programmes.

Programmes are finite.

Health does not work this way.

Workforce wellbeing is an ongoing process.

This is why we increasingly think in terms of wellbeing systems.

Systems that support over time:

This perspective aligns closely with the broader shift towards digital wellbeing described by Smits et al. (2022).

The future is unlikely to be defined by isolated interventions.

It is more likely to be defined by connected ecosystems of support.

Looking Forward

The evidence reviewed by Howarth et al. (2018), Sevic et al. (2023) and Shiri et al. (2023) paints a consistent picture.

However, success depends upon more than availability.

At Trigo, these findings have played an important role in shaping our approach to workforce wellbeing.

Because ultimately, wellbeing programmes do not fail because support is unavailable.

They fail when participation never becomes part of everyday life.

References

  1. Howarth, A., Quesada, J., Silva, J., Judycki, S., Mills, P. R., & Schiavo, J. H. (2018). The Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes in the Workplace: A Systematic Review. Digital Health, 4.
  2. Sevic, S., Müssig, M., Bredemeier, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions Targeting Employee Health Behaviors: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25:e38307.
  3. Shiri, R., Turunen, J., Kausto, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Well-Being of Health and Social Service Workers: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Occupational Health.
  4. Milne-Ives, M., et al. (2023). Potential Associations Between Behaviour Change Techniques and Engagement With Mobile Health Apps.
  5. Edwards, E. A., Lumsden, J., Rivas, C., et al. (2016). Gamification for Health Promotion: Systematic Review of Behaviour Change Techniques in Smartphone Apps. BMJ Open.
  6. Alzghoul, A., Alkhazaleh, Z., Alkhawaldeh, M., et al. (2024). The Effectiveness of Gamification in Health and Wellbeing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Open Public Health Journal.
  7. Smits, M., van Velthoven, M. H., Kotz, D., et al. (2022). From Digital Health to Digital Well-being: Systematic Scoping Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research.

Why Employers Invest in Health

Organisations do not invest in workforce wellbeing simply because healthier employees are desirable.

They invest because health influences organisational performance.

Every employer understands this intuitively.

When employees are healthy, engaged and able to perform at their best, organisations tend to function more effectively.

When health challenges become widespread, the consequences can be significant.

Reduced productivity.

Increased sickness absence.

Higher staff turnover.

Greater healthcare utilisation.

Increased management burden.

Reduced workforce resilience.

For many years, however, conversations about workplace wellbeing have focused primarily on health outcomes.

While these outcomes are important, organisational leaders are often interested in a broader question:

“What difference does workforce wellbeing actually make to organisational performance?”

This question has become increasingly important as employers, insurers and public-sector organisations seek evidence that wellbeing initiatives create measurable value.

The encouraging news is that a growing body of research has begun to explore exactly this relationship.

The findings do not suggest that wellbeing programmes are a magic solution.

Nor do they prove that any specific intervention will guarantee organisational outcomes.

What they do suggest is that workforce health and organisational performance are more closely connected than many organisations previously realised.

Understanding that connection has become an important part of the evidence base underpinning the Trigo approach.

Moving Beyond the Traditional Business Case

Historically, workplace health programmes were often justified using relatively narrow measures.

Reduced sickness absence.

Reduced healthcare costs.

Fewer workplace injuries.

These outcomes remain important.

However, modern workforce health research increasingly recognises that performance is influenced by far more than absence alone.

An employee does not need to be absent to experience reduced work capacity.

They may be present at work while:

These challenges can affect performance even when attendance remains unchanged.

This is why researchers have increasingly begun examining concepts such as:

These measures provide a more complete picture of how health influences organisational performance.

They also help explain why wellbeing has become a strategic issue rather than simply an occupational health issue.

The Evidence on Sickness Absence

One of the most widely cited reviews in this area was conducted by Odeen and colleagues (2013).

Their systematic review examined workplace interventions designed to reduce sickness absence.

The review identified evidence suggesting that active workplace interventions can positively influence absence outcomes.

Importantly, the strongest interventions were rarely passive.

Successful approaches often included:

This finding aligns closely with themes that have emerged throughout this article series.

The evidence repeatedly suggests that outcomes improve when people participate.

This observation is particularly relevant because sickness absence remains one of the most visible organisational consequences of poor workforce health.

For employers, absence represents:

Reducing absence is therefore a legitimate organisational objective.

However, the evidence suggests that organisations should think carefully about how that objective is achieved.

The strongest interventions appear to support participation rather than simply providing access.

Looking Beyond Absence

Although sickness absence remains important, it represents only part of the picture.

Tarro and colleagues (2020) examined workplace interventions from a broader perspective.

Their systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes relating to:

The findings are particularly interesting because they shift attention towards capacity rather than simply attendance.

An employee may attend work regularly while still experiencing reduced ability to perform effectively.

Work ability therefore becomes an important concept.

The review found evidence that workplace interventions can improve work ability and may contribute to improvements in productivity-related outcomes.

This is significant.

It suggests that wellbeing interventions may influence how effectively people work, not merely whether they attend.

For employers facing labour shortages, increasing workloads and growing workforce pressures, this distinction is becoming increasingly important.

Workforce health is no longer simply about attendance.

It is increasingly about sustainable performance.

Understanding Presenteeism

One of the most overlooked concepts in workplace health is presenteeism.

Presenteeism occurs when individuals attend work but perform below their normal capacity because of health-related challenges.

For many organisations, the cost of presenteeism may exceed the cost of sickness absence.

Employees remain present.

However, their effectiveness is reduced.

This can influence:

Cancelliere and colleagues (2011) reviewed workplace health promotion programmes and their impact on presenteeism.

The review found evidence suggesting that workplace health initiatives can positively influence productivity and workplace performance.

Importantly, these findings reinforce a key message emerging throughout the literature.

Health and performance are interconnected.

Organisations often view wellbeing as separate from business performance.

The evidence increasingly suggests that this distinction may be artificial.

Workforce wellbeing and workforce performance are frequently linked.

Why Participation Keeps Appearing in the Evidence

A recurring theme throughout this article series has been participation.

Whether examining:

the same principle appears repeatedly.

Participation matters.

The organisational outcomes literature is no exception.

The reviews conducted by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) consistently point towards interventions that encourage active involvement.

This is an important observation.

Workforce health outcomes are rarely improved through information alone.

People must engage.

They must participate.

They must become involved in their own health.

This does not mean responsibility rests solely with the individual.

Organisations also have a role to play.

Creating environments that support participation becomes an important component of workforce wellbeing strategy.

Why Employers Are Reframing Wellbeing

Historically, wellbeing was often viewed as a benefit.

Something organisations offered because it was the right thing to do.

Many organisations still view wellbeing in these terms.

Increasingly, however, employers are beginning to recognise that wellbeing may also represent an operational capability.

A healthy workforce is often:

This perspective does not diminish the human importance of wellbeing.

Rather, it acknowledges that employee wellbeing and organisational success are frequently aligned.

The evidence reviewed in this article supports that broader view.

Workforce wellbeing should not be viewed solely as a health initiative.

It may also be viewed as an investment in organisational capability.

What This Means for Workforce Health Strategy

One of the most important lessons emerging from the evidence is that organisations should avoid viewing wellbeing as a collection of isolated initiatives.

The strongest interventions are often integrated interventions.

This observation mirrors findings from:

reviewed in the previous article.

Successful workforce wellbeing strategies often combine:

This integrated approach appears repeatedly throughout the literature.

It also reflects a broader shift towards prevention and digital wellbeing.

The objective is no longer simply to respond when problems emerge.

Increasingly, the objective is to support healthier behaviours before significant problems develop.

How This Influenced Trigo

The organisational outcomes evidence has had a significant influence on how we think about workforce wellbeing.

Research by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) demonstrates that health interventions can influence outcomes that matter to organisations.

However, the research also highlights an important limitation.

No study proves that a particular platform automatically improves productivity or reduces absence.

Making such claims would be inappropriate.

Instead, the evidence supports a series of principles.

Participation matters.

Activity matters.

Engagement matters.

Work ability matters.

These principles have influenced the design of the Trigo platform.

Our objective is not simply to provide access to services.

It is to support participation in health.

To encourage healthier behaviours.

To improve access to support.

To help individuals remain engaged over time.

These are the mechanisms that the evidence repeatedly identifies as important.

Completing the Evidence Chain

Throughout this article series, we have explored a sequence of connected ideas.

ART-EV-001 examined the emergence of digital wellbeing.

ART-EV-002 explored engagement and behaviour change.

ART-EV-003 examined supported self-care.

ART-EV-004 considered telehealth and digital clinical delivery.

ART-EV-005 focused on workforce wellbeing implementation.

This article completes the chain.

It demonstrates why these earlier concepts matter to organisations.

Digital wellbeing matters because participation matters.

Participation matters because behaviour change matters.

Behaviour change matters because health outcomes matter.

Health outcomes matter because workforce performance matters.

Each layer builds upon the previous one.

Together they create a coherent evidence-informed framework.

Looking Forward

Organisations face increasing pressure to support workforce health while maintaining performance and resilience.

The evidence reviewed by Odeen et al. (2013), Tarro et al. (2020) and Cancelliere et al. (2011) provides encouraging insights.

Well-designed interventions may positively influence:

However, the evidence also reinforces an important message.

Outcomes rarely emerge from isolated interventions.

They emerge from participation.

From engagement.

From sustained involvement over time.

At Trigo, these findings have helped shape the way we think about workforce wellbeing.

Not as a standalone programme.

Not as a collection of benefits.

But as a system that helps people participate more actively in their own health.

Because ultimately, organisational performance begins with people.

And people perform at their best when they are supported to remain healthy, capable and engaged.

References

  1. Odeen, M., Magnussen, L. H., Maeland, S., Larun, L., Eriksen, H. R., & Tveito, T. H. (2013). Systematic Review of Active Workplace Interventions to Reduce Sickness Absence. Occupational Medicine.
  2. Tarro, L., Llauradó, E., Ulldemolins, G., Hermoso, P., Solà, R., & Moriña, D. (2020). Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions for Improving Absenteeism, Productivity and Work Ability of Employees: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 1901.
  3. Cancelliere, C., Cassidy, J. D., Ammendolia, C., & Côté, P. (2011). Are Workplace Health Promotion Programs Effective at Improving Presenteeism in Workers? A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of the Literature. BMC Public Health.
  4. Howarth, A., Quesada, J., Silva, J., Judycki, S., Mills, P. R., & Schiavo, J. H. (2018). The Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes in the Workplace: A Systematic Review. Digital Health, 4.
  5. Sevic, S., Müssig, M., Bredemeier, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions Targeting Employee Health Behaviors: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25:e38307.
  6. Shiri, R., Turunen, J., Kausto, J., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Well-Being of Health and Social Service Workers: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Occupational Health.

Healthcare Has a Participation Problem

Across healthcare, insurance and workplace wellbeing, there is no shortage of services.

There are clinicians, treatment pathways, wellbeing programmes, digital tools and health information resources available in almost every developed healthcare system.

Yet despite this, many organisations continue to face the same challenges:

The question is no longer whether support exists.

The question is whether people are able and willing to engage with support early enough for it to make a meaningful difference.

This distinction matters.

Many health interventions are designed around what happens after a problem becomes significant enough to require treatment.

We became interested in a different question.

What happens before that point?

How do we help people stay engaged with their own health before they become patients?

That question ultimately became one of the foundations of Trigo.

The answer did not come from a single research paper, a single technology platform or a single healthcare discipline.

Instead, it emerged from a growing body of evidence spanning digital wellbeing, behaviour change, self-management, telehealth, workforce health and organisational performance.

Over time, we realised something important.

The most effective solutions rarely rely on a single intervention.

They combine multiple evidence-based principles into one coherent experience.

That observation sits at the heart of the Trigo platform.

The Shift from Digital Health to Digital Wellbeing

One of the most influential concepts shaping our thinking came from the growing literature on digital wellbeing.

In their systematic scoping review, Smits and colleagues (2022) describe an evolution from traditional digital health towards a broader concept of digital wellbeing.

Historically, digital health has focused primarily on healthcare delivery:

Digital wellbeing expands that perspective.

The focus shifts towards:

This distinction may appear subtle, but it has profound implications.

If healthcare is organised primarily around illness, most interventions occur after problems emerge.

If healthcare is organised around wellbeing, support can begin much earlier.

The Trigo platform was shaped by this philosophy.

We did not want to build another appointment-management system.

We wanted to create infrastructure that supports healthier decisions, healthier behaviours and easier access to support when people need it.

In other words, we became less interested in managing episodes of care and more interested in supporting ongoing participation in health.

Why Engagement Matters More Than Access

Once we began exploring wellbeing and prevention, another question emerged.

Why do some programmes succeed while others struggle?

The answer appears repeatedly throughout the literature.

Engagement.

Research by Howarth et al. (2018), Sevic et al. (2023) and Shiri et al. (2023) consistently highlights participation as a critical determinant of success within workplace health programmes.

Providing access does not automatically create outcomes.

People must engage.

This sounds obvious.

Yet many wellbeing initiatives continue to be evaluated according to what is available rather than what people actually use.

The evidence suggests that participation is not simply a by-product of good intentions.

It can be influenced by design.

Milne-Ives and colleagues (2023) reviewed behaviour change techniques associated with engagement in digital health interventions.

Their findings repeatedly identified:

These mechanisms appear consistently in successful interventions.

The implication is important.

Engagement should not be treated as a marketing objective.

It should be viewed as a clinical and behavioural objective.

If people disengage, the likelihood of sustained behaviour change decreases.

This observation influenced many aspects of the Trigo platform.

Tracking tools, progress indicators, reminders, communication pathways and structured journeys were not added because they are fashionable features.

They were added because the evidence suggests they help people remain involved long enough for meaningful behaviour change to occur.

The Science Behind Motivation

One of the most misunderstood concepts in digital wellbeing is gamification.

The term often creates images of points, badges and leaderboards.

The academic literature paints a much more sophisticated picture.

Edwards and colleagues (2016) examined gamification within health applications and found that many successful systems incorporate recognised behaviour change techniques.

More recently, Alzghoul and colleagues (2024) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis and found evidence that gamification can improve engagement, participation and physical activity outcomes when integrated into broader behaviour change programmes.

The important point is that gamification is not really about games.

It is about motivation.

People are more likely to maintain healthy behaviours when they receive:

The strongest interventions combine these mechanisms with meaningful goals and practical support.

This is precisely how we view engagement within Trigo.

The objective is not to make health feel like a game.

The objective is to make healthy behaviour easier to sustain.

Why We Believe in Supported Self-Care

Engagement alone is not enough.

People need something meaningful to engage with.

This is where supported self-care becomes important.

A recurring theme across healthcare research is the value of active participation.

Baumbach and colleagues (2024) found that physiotherapy interventions focused on active rehabilitation, education and self-management frequently provide strong value.

The message emerging from the literature is remarkably consistent.

People often achieve better outcomes when they become active participants in their own health rather than passive recipients of care.

However, there is an important distinction.

Self-care is not the same as unsupported self-care.

Simply providing information and hoping for the best rarely creates sustainable change.

People need guidance.

They need structure.

They need access to professional support when required.

That is why we prefer the term supported self-care.

At Trigo, we see self-care and professional care as complementary rather than competing concepts.

The objective is not to replace clinicians.

The objective is to help people access the right level of support at the right time.

Rethinking Access to Professional Support

The next question naturally follows.

If professional support remains important, how should it be delivered?

This is where telehealth becomes relevant.

Research by Marks et al. (2023) and Bargeri et al. (2024) provides strong evidence that telehealth and telemedicine can effectively support many musculoskeletal presentations.

Both reviews found that digital delivery can often achieve outcomes comparable to traditional face-to-face care while improving accessibility and convenience.

This finding has significant implications.

The future of healthcare is unlikely to be defined by replacing clinicians with technology.

The evidence does not support that conclusion.

Instead, the evidence suggests that technology can help clinicians deliver support differently.

More efficiently.

More accessibly.

More consistently.

This perspective strongly influenced the Trigo model.

Digital tools support engagement.

Self-care supports participation.

Professional support remains available when needed.

The platform acts as the connective infrastructure between these elements.

From Individual Health to Workforce Health

Much of the research discussed so far focuses on individuals.

Employers, however, face a different question.

How do these principles translate into workforce outcomes?

This is where another important body of evidence emerges.

Odeen et al. (2013) found evidence that workplace interventions can reduce sickness absence.

Tarro et al. (2020) identified positive effects on work ability and productivity.

Cancelliere et al. (2011) demonstrated that workplace health promotion programmes can positively influence presenteeism and workplace performance.

Collectively, these studies suggest that wellbeing is not simply a healthcare issue.

It is also a workforce issue.

A productivity issue.

A resilience issue.

An organisational performance issue.

Importantly, none of these papers prove that a specific platform will reduce absence or improve productivity.

That would be an inappropriate interpretation.

What they do show is that interventions built around participation, activity, support and behaviour change can positively influence outcomes that matter to organisations.

That distinction is important.

The evidence supports the principles.

Our responsibility is to apply those principles responsibly.

Why Trigo Brings These Elements Together

When we step back and look across the evidence base, a pattern becomes clear.

No single intervention solves the problem.

Digital wellbeing alone is not enough.

Engagement alone is not enough.

Gamification alone is not enough.

Self-management alone is not enough.

Telehealth alone is not enough.

Workplace programmes alone are not enough.

The strongest evidence points towards integration.

Participation supported by engagement.

Self-care supported by professionals.

Technology supporting human expertise.

Prevention supported by infrastructure.

This realisation shaped the architecture of Trigo.

The platform is not intended to be a collection of disconnected features.

It is intended to be a practical expression of what the evidence suggests works best.

A place where:

Looking Forward

Healthcare systems continue to face significant pressures.

Demand is increasing.

Resources remain constrained.

Workforces are under strain.

The solution is unlikely to come from a single innovation.

More likely, it will emerge from combining what we already know.

The evidence reviewed over the past decade points towards several recurring principles:

At Trigo, these principles have influenced how we think about health, wellbeing and support.

Not because the research proves Trigo works.

It does not.

Rather, because the research provides a credible foundation for the decisions we have made.

Our belief is simple.

When evidence-informed design, professional expertise and human-centred technology are brought together effectively, it becomes easier for people to participate in their own health.

And participation, ultimately, is where meaningful change begins.

References

Smits et al. (2022). From Digital Health to Digital Well-being: Systematic Scoping Review.

Milne-Ives et al. (2023). Potential Associations Between Behaviour Change Techniques and Engagement With Mobile Health Apps.

Edwards et al. (2016). Gamification for Health Promotion.

Alzghoul et al. (2024). The Effectiveness of Gamification in Health and Wellbeing.

Baumbach et al. (2024). Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments for Musculoskeletal Conditions Offered by Physiotherapists.

Marks et al. (2023). The Health Economic Impact of Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Delivered by Telehealth.

Bargeri et al. (2024). Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders.

Howarth et al. (2018). The Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes in the Workplace.

Sevic et al. (2023). Effectiveness of eHealth Interventions Targeting Employee Health Behaviors.

Shiri et al. (2023). Workplace Interventions to Improve Health and Wellbeing of Health and Social Service Workers.

Odeen et al. (2013). Systematic Review of Active Workplace Interventions to Reduce Sickness Absence.

Tarro et al. (2020). Workplace Interventions for Improving Absenteeism, Productivity and Work Ability.

Cancelliere et al. (2011). Workplace Health Promotion Programs and Presenteeism.