T Braun1, C Bambra2, M Booth2, K Adetayo2, E Milne3. 1. Tees Valley Public Health Shared Service, Redheugh House, Thornaby Place, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BW, UK. 2. Wolfson Research Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK. 3. School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the Better Health at Work Award-a structured regional workplace health programme which combined changes to the work environment with lifestyle interventions. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up data on sickness-absence rates and programme costs were collected retrospectively via a web survey of all participating organizations. Changes over time were calculated using 95% confidence intervals of the mean, supplemented by hypothesis testing using a t-test. The indicative cost-benefits of the intervention were also calculated. RESULTS: Participation was associated with a mean reduction in sickness absence of 0.26-1.6 days per employee per year depending on the length and level of participation in the programme. The estimated cost for the programme was £3 per sickness-absence day saved. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the Better Health at Work Award could be a cost-effective way of improving health and reducing sickness absence particularly in the public sector. However, controlled evaluations of future interventions are needed.
BACKGROUND: This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the Better Health at Work Award-a structured regional workplace health programme which combined changes to the work environment with lifestyle interventions. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up data on sickness-absence rates and programme costs were collected retrospectively via a web survey of all participating organizations. Changes over time were calculated using 95% confidence intervals of the mean, supplemented by hypothesis testing using a t-test. The indicative cost-benefits of the intervention were also calculated. RESULTS: Participation was associated with a mean reduction in sickness absence of 0.26-1.6 days per employee per year depending on the length and level of participation in the programme. The estimated cost for the programme was £3 per sickness-absence day saved. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the Better Health at Work Award could be a cost-effective way of improving health and reducing sickness absence particularly in the public sector. However, controlled evaluations of future interventions are needed.
Authors: Jose Lara; Nicola O'Brien; Alan Godfrey; Ben Heaven; Elizabeth H Evans; Scott Lloyd; Suzanne Moffatt; Paula J Moynihan; Thomas D Meyer; Lynn Rochester; Falko F Sniehotta; Martin White; John C Mathers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Leanne G Morrison; Charlie Hargood; Veljko Pejovic; Adam W A Geraghty; Scott Lloyd; Natalie Goodman; Danius T Michaelides; Anna Weston; Mirco Musolesi; Mark J Weal; Lucy Yardley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sarah A Smith; Shelina Visram; Claire O'Malley; Carolyn Summerbell; Vera Araujo-Soares; Frances Hillier-Brown; Amelia A Lake Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 3.295