A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

Johanna M van Dongen; Jorien E Strijk; Karin I. Proper; Marieke F van Wier; Willem van Mechelen; Maurits W van Tulder; Allard J. Van Der Beek

doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

Johanna M van Dongen, Jorien E Strijk, Karin I. Proper, Marieke F van Wier, Willem van Mechelen, Maurits W van Tulder, Allard J. Van Der Beek

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.

METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.

RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.

CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	337-346
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of occupational and environmental medicine
Volume	55
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e
Publication status	Published - 2013

Keywords

Absenteeism
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Efficiency
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Health Promotion
Hospital Costs
Hospitals, University
Humans
Journal Article
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Economic
Netherlands
Occupational Diseases
Occupational Health
Personnel, Hospital
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Surveys and Questionnaires
Treatment Outcome

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

Cite this

van Dongen, J. M., Strijk, J. E., Proper, K. I., van Wier, M. F., van Mechelen, W., van Tulder, M. W., & Van Der Beek, A. J. (2013). A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 55(3), 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

@article{12b96105dac14243ac75cb76004bc68b,

title = "A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.",

keywords = "Absenteeism, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Efficiency, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Promotion, Hospital Costs, Hospitals, University, Humans, Journal Article, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Economic, Netherlands, Occupational Diseases, Occupational Health, Personnel, Hospital, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome",

author = "{van Dongen}, {Johanna M} and Strijk, {Jorien E} and Proper, {Karin I.} and {van Wier}, {Marieke F} and {van Mechelen}, Willem and {van Tulder}, {Maurits W} and {Van Der Beek}, {Allard J.}",

year = "2013",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e",

language = "English",

volume = "55",

pages = "337--346",

journal = "Journal of occupational and environmental medicine",

issn = "1076-2752",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "3",

}

van Dongen, JM, Strijk, JE, Proper, KI, van Wier, MF, van Mechelen, W, van Tulder, MW & Van Der Beek, AJ 2013, 'A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial', Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial. / van Dongen, Johanna M; Strijk, Jorien E; Proper, Karin I. et al.
In: Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2013, p. 337-346.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial

AU - van Dongen, Johanna M

AU - Strijk, Jorien E

AU - Proper, Karin I.

AU - van Wier, Marieke F

AU - van Mechelen, Willem

AU - van Tulder, Maurits W

AU - Van Der Beek, Allard J.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care.METHODS: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, €280, €7506, and €258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, €2.21 was lost.CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.

KW - Absenteeism

KW - Aged

KW - Aged, 80 and over

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - Efficiency

KW - Female

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Health Promotion

KW - Hospital Costs

KW - Hospitals, University

KW - Humans

KW - Journal Article

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Models, Economic

KW - Netherlands

KW - Occupational Diseases

KW - Occupational Health

KW - Personnel, Hospital

KW - Randomized Controlled Trial

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e

M3 - Article

C2 - 23439274

SN - 1076-2752

VL - 55

SP - 337

EP - 346

JO - Journal of occupational and environmental medicine

JF - Journal of occupational and environmental medicine

IS - 3

ER -

van Dongen JM, Strijk JE, Proper KI, van Wier MF, van Mechelen W, van Tulder MW et al. A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine. 2013;55(3):337-346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31827b738e