Abstract
Objective:
To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers.
Methods:
In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers’ perspective.
Results:
No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000€/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86.
Conclusion:
The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.
To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers.
Methods:
In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers’ perspective.
Results:
No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000€/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86.
Conclusion:
The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e449-e456 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine |
| Volume | 62 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2020 |
Funding
Funding: The Dynamic Work study received funding from Achmea, Interne Diensten N.V. (Handelsweg 2 Zeist, The Netherlands). The funder had no influence on or role in the Dynamic Work study design, data collection, analyses and interpretation of the data, the writing of this paper, and the decision to submit the paper for publication.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Interne Diensten N.V. | |
| Achmea |