Cardio-cerebrovascular diseases (CVDs) are the most common cause of death worldwide. Various CVD risk assessment tools have been developed. In South Korea, the Korea Occupational Safety & Health Agency (KOSHA) and the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) have provided CVD risk assessments with health checkups. Since 2018, the KOSHA guide has stated that NHIS CVD risk assessment tool could be used as an alternative of KOSHA assessment tool for evaluating CVD risk of workers. The objective of this study was to determine the correlation and agreement between the KOSHA and the NHIS CVD risk assessment tools.

Subjects of this study were 17,485 examinees aged 20 to 64 years who had undergone medical examinations from January 2021 to December 2021 at a general hospital. We classified subjects into low-risk, moderate-risk, high-risk, and highest-risk groups according to KOSHA and NHIS’s CVD risk assessment tools. We then compared them with cross-analysis, Spearman correlation analysis, and linearly weighted kappa coefficient.

The correlation between KOSHA and NHIS tools was statistically significant (p-value < 0.001), with a correlation coefficient of 0.403 and a kappa coefficient of 0.203. When we compared risk group distribution using KOSHA and NHIS tools, CVD risk of 6,498 (37.1%) participants showed a concordance. Compared to the NHIS tool, the KOSHA tool classified 9,908 (56.7%) participants into a lower risk category and 1,079 (6.2%) participants into a higher risk category.

In this study, KOSHA and NHIS tools showed a moderate correlation with a fair agreement. The NHIS tool showed a tendency to classify participants to higher CVD risk group than the KOSHA tool. To prevent CVD more effectively, a higher estimation tool among verified CVD risk assessment methods should be selected and managements such as early intervention and treatment of risk factors should be performed targeting the high-risk group.

Health risk assessments (HRA) are used by many organisations as a basis for developing relevant and targeted employee health and well-being interventions. However, many HRA’s have a western-centric focus and therefore it is unclear whether the results can be directly extrapolated to those from non-western countries. More information regarding the differences in the associations between country status and health risks is needed along with a more global perspective of employee health risk factors and well-being overall. Therefore we aimed to i) quantify and compare associations for a number of health risk factors based on country status, and then ii) explore which characteristics can aid better prediction of well-being levels and in turn workplace productivity globally.

Online employee HRA data collected from 254 multi-national companies, for the years 2013 through 2016 was analysed (n = 117,274). Multiple linear regression models were fitted, adjusting for age and gender, to quantify associations between country status and health risk factors. Separate regression models were used to assess the prediction of well-being measures related to productivity.

On average, the developing countries were comprised of younger individuals with lower obesity rates and markedly higher job satisfaction compared to their developed country counterparts. However, they also reported higher levels of anxiety and depression, a greater number of health risks and lower job effectiveness. Assessment of key factors related to productivity found that region of residency was the biggest predictor of presenteeism and poor pain management was the biggest predictor of absenteeism.

Clear differences in health risks exist between employees from developed and developing countries and these should be considered when addressing well-being and productivity in the global workforce.

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40557-017-0172-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.