OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) and financial return of worksite mental health interventions. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases. Included economic evaluations were classified into two groups based on type of intervention: (1) aimed at prevention or treatment of mental health problems among workers or (2) aimed at return to work (RTW) for workers sick-listed from mental health problems. The quality of the included economic evaluations was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list). RESULTS: Ten economic evaluations were included in this systematic review. All four economic evaluations on the prevention or treatment of mental health problems found a positive cost-benefit ratio, although three of these studies had low to moderate methodological quality. In five out of six economic evaluation studies on RTW interventions, no favourable CE or cost-benefit balance was found. One study of moderate methodological quality reported on a positive CE balance. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a limited number of economic evaluations on worksite mental health interventions of which a majority was lacking methodological quality or lacking evidence, only a tentative conclusion can be drawn from the results of this systematic review. Worksite interventions to prevent or treat mental health problems might be cost-effective, while those RTW interventions that included a full economic evaluation aimed at depressed employees do not seem to be cost-beneficial. More high-quality economic evaluation studies of effective worksite mental health interventions are needed to get more insight into the economic impact of worksite mental health interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness (CE) and financial return of worksite mental health interventions. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in relevant databases. Included economic evaluations were classified into two groups based on type of intervention: (1) aimed at prevention or treatment of mental health problems among workers or (2) aimed at return to work (RTW) for workers sick-listed from mental health problems. The quality of the included economic evaluations was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list (CHEC-list). RESULTS: Ten economic evaluations were included in this systematic review. All four economic evaluations on the prevention or treatment of mental health problems found a positive cost-benefit ratio, although three of these studies had low to moderate methodological quality. In five out of six economic evaluation studies on RTW interventions, no favourable CE or cost-benefit balance was found. One study of moderate methodological quality reported on a positive CE balance. CONCLUSIONS: Due to a limited number of economic evaluations on worksite mental health interventions of which a majority was lacking methodological quality or lacking evidence, only a tentative conclusion can be drawn from the results of this systematic review. Worksite interventions to prevent or treat mental health problems might be cost-effective, while those RTW interventions that included a full economic evaluation aimed at depressed employees do not seem to be cost-beneficial. More high-quality economic evaluation studies of effective worksite mental health interventions are needed to get more insight into the economic impact of worksite mental health interventions.
Authors: Myrthe van Vilsteren; Sandra H van Oostrom; Henrica C W de Vet; Renée-Louise Franche; Cécile R L Boot; Johannes R Anema Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-10-05
Authors: Elena Heber; David Daniel Ebert; Dirk Lehr; Stephanie Nobis; Matthias Berking; Heleen Riper Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Johanna M van Dongen; Marieke F van Wier; Emile Tompa; Paulien M Bongers; Allard J van der Beek; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Anthony D LaMontagne; Angela Martin; Kathryn M Page; Nicola J Reavley; Andrew J Noblet; Allison J Milner; Tessa Keegel; Peter M Smith Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Leona Tan; Min-Jung Wang; Matthew Modini; Sadhbh Joyce; Arnstein Mykletun; Helen Christensen; Samuel B Harvey Journal: BMC Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 8.775