The Cost-Effectiveness and Return-On-Investment of a Combined Social and Physical Environmental Intervention in Office Employees

Autor/inn/en	van Dongen, J. M.; Coffeng, J. K.; van Wier, M. F.; Boot, C. R. L.; Hendriksen, I. J. M.; van Mechelen, W.; Bongers, P. M.; van der Beek, A. J.; Bosmans, J. E.; van Tulder, M. W.
Titel	The Cost-Effectiveness and Return-On-Investment of a Combined Social and Physical Environmental Intervention in Office Employees
Quelle	In: Health Education Research, 32 (2017) 5, S.384-398 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0268-1153
DOI	10.1093/her/cyx055
Schlagwörter	Cost Effectiveness; Intervention; Physical Environment; Employees; Social Environment; Health Promotion; Program Descriptions; Work Environment; Employer Attitudes; Comparative Analysis; Control Groups; Relaxation Training; Physical Activity Level; Job Satisfaction; Costs; Experimental Groups; Health Behavior; Office Occupations; Foreign Countries; Netherlands + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse; Kosten-Nutzen-Denken; Natürliche Umwelt; Employee; Arbeitnehmer; Beschäftigter; Soziales Umfeld; Gesundheitsfürsorge; Gesundheitshilfe; Reihenuntersuchung; Arbeitsmilieu; Arbeitgeberinteresse; Entspannungstraining; Labor; Labour; Satisfaction; Arbeit; Zufriedenheit; Cost; Kosten; Health behaviour; Gesundheitsverhalten; Clerical occupations; Büroberuf; Ausland; Niederlande
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. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://her.oxfordjournals.org/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01