TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the Dynamic Work Intervention Compared With Usual Practice to Reduce Sedentary Behavior
AU - Ben, Ângela J.
AU - Jelsma, Judith G.M.
AU - Renaud, Lidewij R.
AU - Huysmans, Maaike A.
AU - van Nassau, Femke
AU - van der Beek, Allard J.
AU - van der Ploeg, Hidde P.
AU - van Dongen, Johanna M.
AU - Bosmans, Judith E.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089301583&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089301583&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001930
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001930
M3 - Article
C2 - 32541620
SN - 1076-2752
VL - 62
SP - e449-e456
JO - Journal of occupational and environmental medicine
JF - Journal of occupational and environmental medicine
IS - 8
ER -