ERIC Number: EJ1156165
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2017-Oct
Abstractor: As Provided
The Cost-Effectiveness and Return-On-Investment of a Combined Social and Physical Environmental Intervention in Office Employees
van Dongen, J. M.; Coffeng, J. K.; van Wier, M. F.; Boot, C. R. L.; Hendriksen, I. J. M.; van Mechelen, W.; Bongers, P. M.; van der Beek, A. J.; Bosmans, J. E.; van Tulder, M. W.
Health Education Research, v32 n5 p384-398 Oct 2017
This study explored the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental worksite health promotion program compared with usual practice, and of both intervention conditions separately. Participants were randomized to the combined intervention (n = 92), social environmental intervention (n = 118), physical environmental intervention (n = 96), or control group (n = 106). The social environmental intervention consisted of group motivational interviewing and the physical environmental intervention of workplace modifications. Both interventions were aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation. Effects included need for recovery (NFR), general vitality and job satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from the societal and employer's perspective, and return-on-investment analyses from the employer's perspective. Compared with usual practice, the combined intervention was significantly more effective in improving NFR (-8.4;95% CI:-14.6;-2.2) and significantly more expensive to the employer (3102; 95%CI:598;5969). All other between-group differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of =€170/point improvement (society) and =€300/point improvement (employer). For general vitality and job satisfaction, the interventions' maximum probabilities of cost-effective were low (=0.55). All interventions had a negative return-on-investment. The combined intervention may be cost-effective for NFR depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay. Both separate interventions are not cost-effective for NFR. All interventions were neither cost-effective for general vitality and job satisfaction, nor cost-saving to the employer.
Descriptors: Cost Effectiveness, Intervention, Physical Environment, Employees, Social Environment, Health Promotion, Program Descriptions, Work Environment, Employer Attitudes, Comparative Analysis, Control Groups, Relaxation Training, Physical Activity Level, Job Satisfaction, Costs, Experimental Groups, Health Behavior, Office Occupations, Foreign Countries
Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: email@example.com; Web site: http://her.oxfordjournals.org/
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: Netherlands
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A