J Guzman1, E Tompa2, M Koehoorn3, H de Boer1, S Macdonald2, H Alamgir4. 1. Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, San Antonio, TX, USA. Abul.h.alamgir@uth.tmc.cedu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based resource allocation in the public health care sector requires reliable economic evaluations that are different from those needed in the commercial sector. AIMS: To describe a framework for conducting economic evaluations of occupational health and safety (OHS) programmes in health care developed with sector stakeholders. To define key resources and outcomes to be considered in economic evaluations of OHS programmes and to integrate these into a comprehensive framework. METHODS: Participatory action research supported by mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, including a multi-stakeholder working group, 25 key informant interviews, a 41-member Delphi panel and structured nominal group discussions. RESULTS: We found three resources had top priority: OHS staff time, training the workers and programme planning, promotion and evaluation. Similarly, five outcomes had top priority: number of injuries, safety climate, job satisfaction, quality of care and work days lost. The resulting framework was built around seven principles of good practice that stakeholders can use to assist them in conducting economic evaluations of OHS programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a framework resulting from this participatory action research approach may increase the quality of economic evaluations of OHS programmes and facilitate programme comparisons for evidence-based resource allocation decisions. The principles may be applicable to other service sectors funded from general taxes and more broadly to economic evaluations of OHS programmes in general.
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based resource allocation in the public health care sector requires reliable economic evaluations that are different from those needed in the commercial sector. AIMS: To describe a framework for conducting economic evaluations of occupational health and safety (OHS) programmes in health care developed with sector stakeholders. To define key resources and outcomes to be considered in economic evaluations of OHS programmes and to integrate these into a comprehensive framework. METHODS: Participatory action research supported by mixed qualitative and quantitative methods, including a multi-stakeholder working group, 25 key informant interviews, a 41-member Delphi panel and structured nominal group discussions. RESULTS: We found three resources had top priority: OHS staff time, training the workers and programme planning, promotion and evaluation. Similarly, five outcomes had top priority: number of injuries, safety climate, job satisfaction, quality of care and work days lost. The resulting framework was built around seven principles of good practice that stakeholders can use to assist them in conducting economic evaluations of OHS programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a framework resulting from this participatory action research approach may increase the quality of economic evaluations of OHS programmes and facilitate programme comparisons for evidence-based resource allocation decisions. The principles may be applicable to other service sectors funded from general taxes and more broadly to economic evaluations of OHS programmes in general.