Author: van Dongen JM, Strijk JE, Proper KI, van Wier MF, van Mechelen W, van Tulder MW, van der Beek AJ.
Affiliation: From the Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work, and Health (Drs van Dongen, van Wier, and Proper, and Prof Drs van Mechelen, van Tulder, and van der Beek), TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research (Drs van Dongen and van Wier and Prof Dr van Tulder), Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research (Drs van Dongen, Strijk, and Proper, and Prof Drs van Mechelen and van der Beek), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research (Dr van Wier and Prof Dr van Tulder), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Conference/Journal: J Occup Environ Med.
Date published: 2013 Feb 22
Other:
Word Count: 140
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, &OV0556;280, &OV0556;7506, and &OV0556;258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, &OV0556;2.21 was lost. CONCLUSIONS:: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.
PMID: 23439274