Search

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., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The unhealthy lifestyle of many Dutch employees may negatively influence their health in general as well as their ability to work. Worksite physical activity, nutrition or combination programmes could improve employee health and, as a consequence of this, reduce costs due to illness absenteeism, early retirement, and health care use. In this article, we present current scientific research in terms of health-related effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and the financial return of these programmes. There is moderate evidence that programmes aimed at nutrition, as well as combined nutrition-and-physical activity programmes, do result in modest improvements in weight-related outcomes and the consumption of fruit, vegetables and fat after 6-12 months. There is also moderate evidence that physical fitness programmes improve physical activity and fitness in the short term. The programmes result in financial returns for the employer, but this conclusion is based on non-randomised studies. No firm conclusions can be drawn regarding their cost-effectiveness. Wide implementation of singular worksite physical activity, nutrition or combination programmes is therefore currently discouraged. It would probably be more effective and economical to set up a broad range of interventions and measures. This requires more research, however, as well as more opportunities for offering tailor-made programmes.

This systematic review summarizes the current evidence on the financial return of worksite health promotion programmes aimed at improving nutrition and/or increasing physical activity. Data on study characteristics and results were extracted from 18 studies published up to 14 January 2011. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Three metrics were (re-)calculated per study: the net benefits, benefit cost ratio (BCR) and return on investment (ROI). Metrics were averaged, and a post hoc subgroup analysis was performed to compare financial return estimates between study designs. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 non-randomized studies (NRSs) and one modelling study were included. Average financial return estimates in terms of absenteeism benefits (NRS: ROI 325%, BCR 4.25; RCT: ROI -49%, BCR 0.51), medical benefits (NRS: ROI 95%, BCR 1.95; RCT: ROI -112%, BCR -0.12) or both (NRS: ROI 387%, BCR 4.87; RCT: ROI -92%, BCR 0.08) were positive in NRSs, but negative in RCTs. Worksite health promotion programmes aimed at improving nutrition and/or increasing physical activity generate financial savings in terms of reduced absenteeism costs, medical costs or both according to NRSs, whereas they do not according to RCTs. Since these programmes are associated with additional types of benefits, conclusions about their overall profitability cannot be made., (© 2011 The Authors. obesity reviews © 2011 International Association for the Study of Obesity.)

Background: The prevalence of overweight is increasing and its consequences will cause a major public health burden in the near future. Cost-effective interventions for weight control among the general population are therefore needed. The ALIFE@Work study is investigating a novel lifestyle intervention, aimed at the working population, with individual counselling through either phone or e-mail. This article describes the design of the study and the participant flow up to and including randomisation., Methods/design: ALIFE@Work is a controlled trial, with randomisation to three arms: a control group, a phone based intervention group and an internet based intervention group. The intervention takes six months and is based on a cognitive behavioural approach, addressing physical activity and diet. It consists of 10 lessons with feedback from a personal counsellor, either by phone or e-mail, between each lesson. Lessons contain educational content combined with behaviour change strategies. Assignments in each lesson teach the participant to apply these strategies to every day life. The study population consists of employees from seven Dutch companies. The most important inclusion criteria are having a body mass index (BMI) > or = 25 kg/m2 and being an employed adult. Primary outcomes of the study are body weight and BMI, diet and physical activity. Other outcomes are: perceived health; empowerment; stage of change and self-efficacy concerning weight control, physical activity and eating habits; work performance/productivity; waist circumference, sum of skin folds, blood pressure, total blood cholesterol level and aerobic fitness. A cost-utility- and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed as well. Physiological outcomes are measured at baseline and after six and 24 months. Other outcomes are measured by questionnaire at baseline and after six, 12, 18 and 24 months. Statistical analyses for short term (six month) results are performed with multiple linear regression. Analyses for long term (two year) results are performed with multiple longitudinal regression. Analyses for cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are done at one and two years, using bootstrapping techniques., Discussion: ALIFE@Work will make a substantial contribution to the development of cost-effective weight control- and lifestyle interventions that are applicable to and attractive for the large population at risk.