The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees

J M van Dongen, J K Coffeng, M F van Wier, Cecile R. L. Boot, I.J.M. Hendriksen, W. van Mechelen, Paulien M. Bongers, Allard J. Van Der Beek, J E Bosmans, M W van Tulder

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study explored the cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental worksite health promotion program compared with usual practice, and of both intervention conditions separately. Participants were randomized to the combined intervention (n = 92), social environmental intervention (n = 118), physical environmental intervention (n = 96), or control group (n = 106). The social environmental intervention consisted of group motivational interviewing and the physical environmental intervention of workplace modifications. Both interventions were aimed at improving physical activity and relaxation. Effects included need for recovery (NFR), general vitality and job satisfaction. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed from the societal and employer's perspective, and return-on-investment analyses from the employer's perspective. Compared with usual practice, the combined intervention was significantly more effective in improving NFR (-8.4;95% CI:-14.6;-2.2) and significantly more expensive to the employer (3102; 95%CI:598;5969). All other between-group differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of ≥€170/point improvement (society) and ≥€300/point improvement (employer). For general vitality and job satisfaction, the interventions' maximum probabilities of cost-effective were low (≤0.55). All interventions had a negative return-on-investment. The combined intervention may be cost-effective for NFR depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay. Both separate interventions are not cost-effective for NFR. All interventions were neither cost-effective for general vitality and job satisfaction, nor cost-saving to the employer.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)384-398
Number of pages15
JournalHealth Education Research
Volume32
Issue number5
Early online date9 Aug 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

Funding

This work was supported by financed Fonds Nuts Ohra (Nuts Ohra Foundation). This study was performed alongside a 12-month 2X2 factorial randomized controlled trial (RCT). Full trial details are published elsewhere [15]. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

FundersFunder number
Nuts Ohra Foundation
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Fonds NutsOhra

    Keywords

    • Journal Article

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this