Cindy Noben1, Silvia Evers2, Karen Nieuwenhuijsen3, Sarah Ketelaar4, Fania Gärtner5, Judith Sluiter6, Filip Smit7. 1. Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, the Netherlands (Department of Public Mental Health). c.noben@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, the Netherlands (Department of Public Mental Health). s.evers@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 3. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Coronel Institute of Occupational Health). k.nieuwenhuijsen@amc.uva.nl. 4. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Coronel Institute of Occupational Health). s.m.ketelaar@amc.uva.nl. 5. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Coronel Institute of Occupational Health). f.r.gartner@lumc.nl. 6. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Coronel Institute of Occupational Health). j.sluiter@amc.uva.nl. 7. Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, the Netherlands (Department of Public Mental Health). fsmit@trimbos.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Nurses are at elevated risk of burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders, and may then become less productive. This begs the question if a preventive intervention in the work setting might be cost-saving from a business perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to evaluate the balance between the costs of a preventive intervention among nurses at elevated risk of mental health complaints and the cost offsets stemming from improved productivity. This evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized trial in a Dutch academic hospital. The control condition consisted of screening without feedback and unrestricted access to usual care (N = 206). In the experimental condition screen-positive nurses received personalized feedback and referral to the occupational physician (N = 207). RESULTS: Subtracting intervention costs from the cost offsets due to reduced absenteeism and presenteeism resulted in net-savings of 244 euros per nurse when only absenteeism is regarded, and 651 euros when presenteeism is also taken into account. This corresponds to a return-on-investment of 5 euros up to 11 euros for every euro invested. CONCLUSIONS: Within half a year, the cost of offering the preventive intervention was more than recouped. Offering the preventive intervention represents a favorable business case as seen from the employer's perspective. This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Nurses are at elevated risk of burnout, anxiety and depressive disorders, and may then become less productive. This begs the question if a preventive intervention in the work setting might be cost-saving from a business perspective. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted to evaluate the balance between the costs of a preventive intervention among nurses at elevated risk of mental health complaints and the cost offsets stemming from improved productivity. This evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized trial in a Dutch academic hospital. The control condition consisted of screening without feedback and unrestricted access to usual care (N = 206). In the experimental condition screen-positive nurses received personalized feedback and referral to the occupational physician (N = 207). RESULTS: Subtracting intervention costs from the cost offsets due to reduced absenteeism and presenteeism resulted in net-savings of 244 euros per nurse when only absenteeism is regarded, and 651 euros when presenteeism is also taken into account. This corresponds to a return-on-investment of 5 euros up to 11 euros for every euro invested. CONCLUSIONS: Within half a year, the cost of offering the preventive intervention was more than recouped. Offering the preventive intervention represents a favorable business case as seen from the employer's perspective. This work is available in Open Access model and licensed under a CC BY-NC 3.0 PL license.
Authors: Ben F M Wijnen; Joran Lokkerbol; Cecile Boot; Bo M Havermans; Allard J van der Beek; Filip Smit Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Felicia S Los; Henk F van der Molen; Carel T J Hulshof; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: F A van den Brand; G E Nagelhout; B Winkens; S M A A Evers; D Kotz; N H Chavannes; C P van Schayck Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Suzanne Lokman; Danielle Volker; Moniek C Zijlstra-Vlasveld; Evelien Pm Brouwers; Brigitte Boon; Aartjan Tf Beekman; Filip Smit; Christina M Van der Feltz-Cornelis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Iben Axén; Elisabeth Björk Brämberg; Marjan Vaez; Andreas Lundin; Gunnar Bergström Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 3.015