These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis of a worksite vitality intervention among older hospital workers: results of a randomized controlled trial.
    Author: van Dongen JM, Strijk JE, Proper KI, van Wier MF, van Mechelen W, van Tulder MW, van der Beek AJ.
    Journal: J Occup Environ Med; 2013 Mar; 55(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 23439274.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]