OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers. METHODS: In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers' perspective. RESULTS: No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000&OV0556;/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86. CONCLUSION: The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment (ROI) of the Dynamic Work (DW) Intervention, a worksite intervention aimed at reducing sitting time among office workers. METHODS: In total, 244 workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. Overall sitting time, standing time, step counts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were measured over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the ROI analysis from the employers' perspective. RESULTS: No significant differences in effects and societal costs were observed between groups. Presenteeism costs were significantly lower in the intervention group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.90 at a willingness-to-pay of 20,000&OV0556;/QALY. The probability of financial savings was 0.86. CONCLUSION: The intervention may be considered cost-effective from the societal perspective depending on the willingness-to-pay. From the employer perspective, the intervention seems cost-beneficial.
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
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