Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the Dynamic Work Intervention Compared With Usual Practice to Reduce Sedentary Behavior
Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of the Dynamic Work Intervention Compared With Usual Practice to Reduce Sedentary Behavior
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/jom.0000000000001930
复制
发表时间：
2020-08-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Bosmans, Judith E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ben, Angela J.;Jelsma, Judith G. M.;Bosmans, Judith E.
目的：评估动态工作（DW）干预的成本效益和投资回报率（ROI），这是一种旨在减少办公室工作人员坐着的时间的工作场所干预。方法：将244名工人随机分为干预组和对照组。在12个月内测量了总体坐着时间、站立时间、步数、质量调整生命年（QHMS）和成本。从社会角度进行了成本效益分析，从雇主的角度进行了投资回报率分析。结果：两组之间的效果和社会成本没有显着差异。干预组的出席成本显着降低。在支付意愿为20，000（原文如此）/QALY时，干预具有成本效益的概率为0.90。财务储蓄的概率为0.86。结论：从社会角度来看，根据支付意愿，干预措施可能被认为是具有成本效益的。从雇主的角度来看，这种干预似乎具有成本效益。
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(sic)/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.