The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees

J. M. Van Dongen, J. K. Coffeng, M. F. Van Wier, C. R.L. Boot, I. J.M. Hendriksen, W. Van Mechelen, P. M. Bongers, A. J. Van Der Beek, J. E. Bosmans, M. W. Van Tulder

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

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 groupmotivational 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 betweengroup differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of≥ϵ170/point improvement (society) and≥ϵ300/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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)384-398
Number of pages15
JournalHealth Education Research
Volume32
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2017

Cite this

@article{f79ed7bc1fef488cb377bb6092ec38c0,
title = "The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees",
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 groupmotivational 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 betweengroup differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of≥ϵ170/point improvement (society) and≥ϵ300/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.",
author = "{Van Dongen}, {J. M.} and Coffeng, {J. K.} and {Van Wier}, {M. F.} and Boot, {C. R.L.} and Hendriksen, {I. J.M.} and {Van Mechelen}, W. and Bongers, {P. M.} and {Van Der Beek}, {A. J.} and Bosmans, {J. E.} and {Van Tulder}, {M. W.}",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/her/cyx055",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "384--398",
journal = "Health Education Research",
issn = "0268-1153",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees. / 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.

In: Health Education Research, Vol. 32, No. 5, 01.10.2017, p. 384-398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment of a combined social and physical environmental intervention in office employees

AU - Van Dongen, J. M.

AU - Coffeng, J. K.

AU - Van Wier, M. F.

AU - Boot, C. R.L.

AU - Hendriksen, I. J.M.

AU - Van Mechelen, W.

AU - Bongers, P. M.

AU - Van Der Beek, A. J.

AU - Bosmans, J. E.

AU - Van Tulder, M. W.

PY - 2017/10/1

Y1 - 2017/10/1

N2 - 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 groupmotivational 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 betweengroup differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of≥ϵ170/point improvement (society) and≥ϵ300/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.

AB - 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 groupmotivational 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 betweengroup differences were non-significant. For NFR, the combined intervention became the preferred option at willingness-to-pays of≥ϵ170/point improvement (society) and≥ϵ300/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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030658100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/her/cyx055

DO - 10.1093/her/cyx055

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 384

EP - 398

JO - Health Education Research

JF - Health Education Research

SN - 0268-1153

IS - 5

ER -