Johanna M van Dongen1, Jantien van Berkel, Cécile R L Boot, Judith E Bosmans, Karin I Proper, Paulien M Bongers, Allard J van der Beek, Maurits W van Tulder, Marieke F van Wier. 1. Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center (Drs van Dongen, van Berkel, Boot, Proper, Bongers, Beek, van Tulder, van Wier); Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam (Drs van Dongen, Bosmans, van Tulder, van Wier); Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam (Drs van Dongen, van Berkel, Boot, Proper, der Beek); TNO Healthy Living, Leiden (Dr Bongers); and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Drs van Tulder, van Wier).
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a mindfulness-based worksite intervention to usual practice. METHODS:Two hundred fifty-seven governmental research institute employees were randomized to the intervention or control group. Intervention group participants received an eight-week mindfulness training, e-coaching, and supporting elements. Outcomes included work engagement, general vitality, job satisfaction, work ability, and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the societal and employer's perspective, and a return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective. RESULTS: After 12 months, a significant but not clinically relevant adverse effect on work engagement was found (-0.19; 95% confidence interval: -0.38 to -0.01). There were no significant differences in job satisfaction, general vitality, work ability, and total costs. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were low (≤0.25) and the intervention did not have a positive financial return to the employer. CONCLUSION: The intervention was neither cost-saving nor cost-effective. Poor e-coaching compliance might partly explain this result.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a mindfulness-based worksite intervention to usual practice. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-seven governmental research institute employees were randomized to the intervention or control group. Intervention group participants received an eight-week mindfulness training, e-coaching, and supporting elements. Outcomes included work engagement, general vitality, job satisfaction, work ability, and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the societal and employer's perspective, and a return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective. RESULTS: After 12 months, a significant but not clinically relevant adverse effect on work engagement was found (-0.19; 95% confidence interval: -0.38 to -0.01). There were no significant differences in job satisfaction, general vitality, work ability, and total costs. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were low (≤0.25) and the intervention did not have a positive financial return to the employer. CONCLUSION: The intervention was neither cost-saving nor cost-effective. Poor e-coaching compliance might partly explain this result.
Authors: Sai Krupa Das; Shawn T Mason; Taylor A Vail; Caroline M Blanchard; Meghan K Chin; Gail T Rogers; Kara A Livingston; Jennifer L Turgiss Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2019-11-07
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: Julieta Galante; Claire Friedrich; Anna F Dawson; Marta Modrego-Alarcón; Pia Gebbing; Irene Delgado-Suárez; Radhika Gupta; Lydia Dean; Tim Dalgleish; Ian R White; Peter B Jones Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 11.069