Nathanael Lutz1,2, Jan Taeymans1,2, Claudia Ballmer2, Nick Verhaeghe3,4, Peter Clarys1, Tom Deliens1. 1. Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Department of Public Health, Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the evidence regarding economic evaluations of worksite health promotion programs in Europe. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the literature search, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two researchers. Full economic evaluations of worksite health promotion programs carried out in a European workplace were included. RESULTS: From 1728 search results, 39 articles describing 37 studies were included. Regarding methodological quality, 9 studies were rated as strong, 15 as moderate and 15 as weak. Six of the studies fulfilled the minimum standard for health economic evaluations. Worksite health promotion was applied in many different forms for a wide range of settings. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-utility analyses were performed from different perspectives. Effects on health outcomes tended to be small and uncertain. Only 9 out of 21 cost-benefit analyses reported a financial benefit and 10 out of 23 cost-effectiveness analyses concluded that the intervention was cost-effective. Two out of eight cost-utility analyses were found to be cost-effective. Productivity loss accounted for more than 85% of the total costs and thus, was the main cost driver in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Due to considerable heterogeneity, no specific type of intervention could be identified to be particularly effective and the economic value of worksite health promotion remains uncertain. Further studies, investigating comprehensive worksite health promotion programs are needed to provide evidence on their efficiency. Guidelines to perform economic evaluations in the field of worksite health promotion, especially for valuation of productivity loss, are required.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the evidence regarding economic evaluations of worksite health promotion programs in Europe. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the literature search, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two researchers. Full economic evaluations of worksite health promotion programs carried out in a European workplace were included. RESULTS: From 1728 search results, 39 articles describing 37 studies were included. Regarding methodological quality, 9 studies were rated as strong, 15 as moderate and 15 as weak. Six of the studies fulfilled the minimum standard for health economic evaluations. Worksite health promotion was applied in many different forms for a wide range of settings. Cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-utility analyses were performed from different perspectives. Effects on health outcomes tended to be small and uncertain. Only 9 out of 21 cost-benefit analyses reported a financial benefit and 10 out of 23 cost-effectiveness analyses concluded that the intervention was cost-effective. Two out of eight cost-utility analyses were found to be cost-effective. Productivity loss accounted for more than 85% of the total costs and thus, was the main cost driver in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Due to considerable heterogeneity, no specific type of intervention could be identified to be particularly effective and the economic value of worksite health promotion remains uncertain. Further studies, investigating comprehensive worksite health promotion programs are needed to provide evidence on their efficiency. Guidelines to perform economic evaluations in the field of worksite health promotion, especially for valuation of productivity loss, are required.
Authors: Nathanael Lutz; Lena Dalle Grave; Dirk Richter; Tom Deliens; Nick Verhaeghe; Jan Taeymans; Peter Clarys Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Brad Shuck; Joy L Hart; Kandi L Walker; Jayesh Rai; Shweta Srivastava; Sanjay Srivastava; Shesh Rai; Aruni Bhatnagar; Rachel J Keith Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.614