A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

Johanna M van Dongen; Jorien E Strijk; Karin I. Proper; Marieke F van Wier; Willem van Mechelen; Maurits W van Tulder; Allard J. Van Der Beek

doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

Johanna M van Dongen, Jorien E Strijk, Karin I. Proper, Marieke F van Wier, Willem van Mechelen, Maurits W van Tulder, Allard J. Van Der Beek

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.

METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.

RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.

CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	337-346
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Volume	55
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e
Publication status	Published - 2013

Keywords

Absenteeism
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Efficiency
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Health Promotion
Hospital Costs
Hospitals, University
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Economic
Netherlands
Occupational Diseases
Occupational Health
Personnel, Hospital
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Access to Document

10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

Persistent URL (handle)

Copy link address

Cite this

van Dongen, J. M., Strijk, J. E., Proper, K. I., van Wier, M. F., van Mechelen, W., van Tulder, M. W., & Van Der Beek, A. J. (2013). A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55(3), 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

@article{8e61fff66a914621aabf770ce75f566b,

title = "A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.",

keywords = "Absenteeism, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Efficiency, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Promotion, Hospital Costs, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Economic, Netherlands, Occupational Diseases, Occupational Health, Personnel, Hospital, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't",

author = "{van Dongen}, {Johanna M} and Strijk, {Jorien E} and Proper, {Karin I.} and {van Wier}, {Marieke F} and {van Mechelen}, Willem and {van Tulder}, {Maurits W} and {Van Der Beek}, {Allard J.}",

year = "2013",

doi = "10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e",

language = "English",

volume = "55",

pages = "337--346",

journal = "Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine",

issn = "1076-2752",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "3",

}

van Dongen, JM, Strijk, JE, Proper, KI, van Wier, MF, van Mechelen, W, van Tulder, MW & Van Der Beek, AJ 2013, 'A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial', Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial. / van Dongen, Johanna M; Strijk, Jorien E; Proper, Karin I. et al.
In: Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2013, p. 337-346.

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

AU - van Dongen, Johanna M

AU - Strijk, Jorien E

AU - Proper, Karin I.

AU - van Wier, Marieke F

AU - van Mechelen, Willem

AU - van Tulder, Maurits W

AU - Van Der Beek, Allard J.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

KW - Absenteeism

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - Efficiency

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Health Promotion

KW - Hospital Costs

KW - Hospitals, University

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Models, Economic

KW - Netherlands

KW - Occupational Diseases

KW - Occupational Health

KW - Personnel, Hospital

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Journal Article

KW - Randomized Controlled Trial

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

U2 - 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

DO - 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

M3 - Article

C2 - 23439274

SN - 1076-2752

VL - 55

SP - 337

EP - 346

JO - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

JF - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

IS - 3

ER -

A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Fingerprint

Cite this