Literature DB >> 30078034

Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce office workers' sitting time: the "Stand Up Victoria" trial.

Lan Gao1, Anna Flego, David W Dunstan, Elisabeth Ah Winkler, Genevieve N Healy, Elizabeth G Eakin, Lisa Willenberg, Neville Owen, Anthony D LaMontagne, Anita Lal, Glen H Wiesner, Nyssa T Hadgraft, Marj L Moodie.   

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to assess the economic credentials of a workplace-delivered intervention to reduce sitting time among desk-based workers. Methods We performed within-trial cost-efficacy analysis and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and recruited 231 desk-based workers, aged 24-65 years, across 14 worksites of one organization. Multicomponent workplace-delivered intervention was compared to usual practice. Main outcome measures including total device-measured workplace sitting time, body mass index (BMI), self-reported health-related quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life-8D, AQoL-8D), and absenteeism measured at 12 months. Results Compared to usual practice, the intervention was associated with greater cost (AU$431/person), benefits in terms of reduced workplace sitting time [-46.8 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% confidence interval (CI): -69.9- -23.7] and increased workplace standing time (42.2 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% CI 23.8-60.6). However, there were no significant benefits for BMI [0.148 kg/m 2(95% CI-1.407-1.703)], QoL-8D [-0.006 (95% CI -0.074-0.063)] and absenteeism [2.12 days (95% CI -2.01-6.26)]. The incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) ranged from AU$9.94 cost/minute reduction in workplace sitting time to AU$13.37/minute reduction in overall sitting time. CEA showed the intervention contributed to higher life year (LY) gains [0.01 (95% CI 0.009-0.011)], higher health-adjusted life year (HALY) gains [0.012 (95% CI 0.0105 - 0.0135)], and higher net costs [AU$344 (95% CI $331-358)], with corresponding ICER of AU$34 443/LY and AU$28 703/HALY if the intervention effects were to be sustained for five-years. CEA results were sensitive to assumptions surrounding intervention-effect decay rate and discount rate. Conclusions The intervention was cost-effective over the lifetime of the cohort when scaled up to the national workforce and provides important.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30078034     DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health        ISSN: 0355-3140            Impact factor:   5.024


  9 in total

Review 1.  Evidence base of economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions reducing occupational sitting time: an integrative review.

Authors:  Sanaz Akhavan Rad; Frank Kiwanuka; Raija Korpelainen; Paulus Torkki
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Economic Evaluation of an Intervention Promoting Adoption of Occupational Sun Protection Policies.

Authors:  Richard T Meenan; Barbara J Walkosz; David B Buller; Rachel Eye; Mary K Buller; Allan D Wallis; Savanna Olivas
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.162

3.  Are Office-Based Workplace Interventions Designed to Reduce Sitting Time Cost-Effective Primary Prevention Measures for Cardiovascular Disease? A Systematic Review and Modelled Economic Evaluation.

Authors:  Lan Gao; Phuong Nguyen; David Dunstan; Marjory Moodie
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Workers' Healthcare Assistance Model (WHAM): Development, Validation, and Assessment of Sustainable Return on Investment (S-ROI).

Authors:  Lilian Monteiro Ferrari Viterbo; André Santana Costa; Diogo Guedes Vidal; Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Rise and Recharge: Effects on Activity Outcomes of an e-Health Smartphone Intervention to Reduce Office Workers' Sitting Time.

Authors:  Abigail S Morris; Kelly A Mackintosh; David Dunstan; Neville Owen; Paddy Dempsey; Thomas Pennington; Melitta A McNarry
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-12-12       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Does tutors' support contribute to a telehealth program that aims to promote the quality of life of office workers? A cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Roberto Rodrigues Bandeira Tosta Maciel; Luciana Dias Chiavegato; Fernanda Warken Camelier; Daniel Deivson Portella; Marcio Costa De Souza; Rosimeire Simprini Padula
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2021-02-01

7.  Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.

Authors:  Phuong Nguyen; Jaithri Ananthapavan; Eng Joo Tan; Paul Crosland; Steve J Bowe; Lan Gao; David W Dunstan; Marj Moodie
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 6.457

8.  Economic evaluation protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare Smartphone Cardiac Rehabilitation, Assisted self-Management (SCRAM) versus usual care cardiac rehabilitation among people with coronary heart disease.

Authors:  Lan Gao; Ralph Maddison; Jonathan Rawstorn; Kylie Ball; Brian Oldenburg; Clara Chow; Sarah McNaughton; Karen Lamb; John Amerena; Voltaire Nadurata; Christopher Neil; Stuart Cameron; Marj Moodie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Cost and cost-effectiveness of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk.

Authors:  Tzeyu L Michaud; Wen You; Paul A Estabrooks; Krista Leonard; Sarah A Rydell; Sarah L Mullane; Mark A Pereira; Matthew P Buman
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.492

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.