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.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether a lifestyle intervention with individual counselling was cost-effective for reducing body weight compared with usual care from a company perspective., Participants: Overweight employees were recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention groups, either phone or Internet, or the control group., Methods: The intervention was based on a cognitive behavioural approach and addressed physical activity and diet. Self-reported body weight was collected at baseline and 12 months follow-up. Intervention costs and costs of sick leave days based on gross and net lost productivity days (GLPDs/NLPDs) obtained from the participating companies were calculated. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Uncertainty surrounding the differences in costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) was estimated by bootstrapping techniques, and presented on cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves., Results: No statistically significant differences in total costs were found between the intervention groups and control group, though mean total costs in both intervention groups tended to be higher than those in the control group. The ICER of the Internet group compared with the control group was €59 per kilogram of weight loss based on GLPD costs. The probability of cost effectiveness of the Internet intervention was 45% at a willingness-to-pay of €0 per extra kilogram weight loss and 75% at a willingness-to-pay of €1500 per extra kilogram body weight loss. Comparable results were found for the phone intervention., Conclusions: The intervention was not cost effective in comparison with usual care from the company perspective. Due to the large amount of missing data, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions.