Cost and cost-effectiveness of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk.
Cost and cost-effectiveness of the 'Stand and Move at Work' multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk.
复制标题
DOI：
10.5271/sjweh.4022
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Buman MP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Michaud TL;You W;Estabrooks PA;Leonard K;Rydell SA;Mullane SL;Pereira MA;Buman MP
很少有研究报道工作场所干预减少久坐时间的成本和成本效益。这项研究的目的是完成对减少坐着时间和增加员工光强度体力活动(LPA)的多级干预的经济评估。我们进行了一项回溯性的试验内成本和成本效果分析(CEA)，以比较在24个工作地点(N=630名员工参与者)中加入整群随机临床试验的12个月多水平干预在有(STAND+)和没有(MOVE+)坐-立工作站的情况下的差异。我们采用作业成本计算法估算干预成本。干预成本进一步按每人和每个工作地点表示。CEA采用增量成本效果比(ICER)指标，表示为12个月时增加/减少的静坐时间(分钟/天)、LPA(分钟/天)、心脏代谢风险评分和质量调整寿命年(QALY)的成本。我们从组织(即雇主)的角度评估了成本分析和CEA，时间跨度为一年。总干预成本分别为每人134美元和72美元，以及Stand+(N个工作地点=12个；N个员工=354人)和Move+(N个工作地点=12个；N个员工=276人)干预措施的每个工作地点3939美元和1650美元。工作场所坐着时间每多减少一分钟(标准化为每天8小时)，ICER为1美元(95%CI为0.8-1.4)；12个月后每增加一个QALY，ICER为4656美元。工作效率提高的损失有一个温和而不显著的变化(-0.03小时，95%CI-4.16-4.09小时)，这与每投资1美元获得0.34美元的回报有关。利用坐立工作站的多层次干预具有广泛实施的潜力，以减少工作场所坐着的时间。未来有必要从雇主的成本效益角度对工作效率结果进行研究。
Few studies have reported the cost and cost-effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary time. The purpose of this study was to complete an economic evaluation of a multilevel intervention to reduce sitting time and increase light-intensity physical activity (LPA) among employees. We conducted a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a 12-month multilevel intervention with (STAND+) and without (MOVE+) a sit-stand workstation, across 24 worksites (N=630 employee participants) enrolled in a cluster randomized clinical trial. We estimated the intervention costs using activity-based costing strategy. The intervention costs were further expressed as per person and per worksite. CEA was conducted using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) metric, expressed as costs for additional unit of sitting time (minute/day), LPA (minutes/day), cardiometabolic risk score, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) increased/decreased at 12 months. We assessed the cost analysis and CEA from the organizational (ie, employer) perspective with a one-year time horizon. Total intervention costs were $134 and $72 per person, and $3939 and $1650 per worksite for the STAND+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 354) and MOVE+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 276) interventions, respectively. The ICER was $1 (95% CI $0.8–1.4) for each additional minute reduction of workplace sitting time (standardized to 8-hour workday); and $4656 per QALY gained at 12 months. There was a modest and non-significant change of loss of work productivity improvement (-0.03 hours, 95% CI -4.16–4.09 hours), which was associated with a $0.34 return for every $1 invested. The multi-level intervention with sit-stand workstations has the potential to be widely implemented to reduce workplace sitting time. Future research into work productivity outcomes in terms of cost-benefits for employers is warranted.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Heron, Leonie;O'Neill, Ciaran;Tully, Mark A.
通讯作者：
Tully, Mark A.
DOI：
10.1097/jom.0000000000001930
发表时间：
2020-08-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Ben, Angela J.;Jelsma, Judith G. M.;Bosmans, Judith E.
通讯作者：
Bosmans, Judith E.
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Ding, Ding;Lawson, Kenny D.;Pratt, Michael
通讯作者：
Pratt, Michael
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Dohrn, Ing-Mari;Kwak, Lydia;Hagstromer, Maria
通讯作者：
Hagstromer, Maria
DOI：
10.1186/s12966-017-0576-x
发表时间：
2017-08-31
期刊：
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
影响因子：
--
作者：
Mullane SL;Toledo MJL;Rydell SA;Feltes LH;Vuong B;Crespo NC;Pereira MA;Buman MP
通讯作者：
Buman MP