Economic analyses of mental health and substance use interventions in the workplace: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis

Oliveira, Claire de; Cho, Edward H.; Kavelaars, Ruth Anne; Jamieson, Margaret; Bao, Buddy; Rehm, Jürgen

doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30145-0

Cited by 28 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results from the employer's perspective are also in line with findings from a recent systematic review showing that targeting substance misuse in employees improves both employees’ wellbeing and productivity [58]. Regarding the ROI analyses, our findings compare favourably to a systematic review on the costs and benefits of health promotion interventions at the work‐place ( n = 12 RCTs), which revealed on average a negative ROI (ROI = –0.22, 95% CI = 0.27–0.16; min = −4.3; max = 5) [59].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Our results from the employer's perspective are also in line with findings from a recent systematic review showing that targeting substance misuse in employees improves both employees' wellbeing and productivity [58]. Regarding the ROI analyses, our findings compare favourably to a systematic review on the costs and benefits of health f Benefits are the difference in productivity costs between the intervention groups and the control condition.…”

Section: Comparison To Previous Researchsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reducing problematic alcohol use in employees: economic evaluation of guided and unguided web‐based interventions alongside a three‐arm randomized controlled trial

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To perform an economic evaluation of guided and unguided internet-based interventions to reduce problematic alcohol consumption in employees compared with a waiting-list control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment-as-usual.Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) from a societal and a cost-benefit analysis from the employer's perspective with a 6-month time horizon.Setting: Open recruitment in the German working population.Participants: Employees (178 males, 256 females, mean age 47 years) consuming at least 14 (women) or 21 (men) standard units of alcohol (SUAs) per week and scoring ≥ 8 (men) or 6 (women) on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.Measurements: On-line questionnaires administered to assess SUAs and assess quality of life (AQoL-8D) and resource use. Outcome measure was responder (≤ 14/≤ 21 SUAs) for the CEA and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the CUA. Net benefit regression was used to estimate cost-effectiveness for each study arm. Bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Our results from the employer's perspective are also in line with findings from a recent systematic review showing that targeting substance misuse in employees improves both employees' wellbeing and productivity [58]. Regarding the ROI analyses, our findings compare favourably to a systematic review on the costs and benefits of health f Benefits are the difference in productivity costs between the intervention groups and the control condition.…”

Section: Comparison To Previous Researchsupporting

confidence: 89%

Reducing problematic alcohol use in employees: economic evaluation of guided and unguided web‐based interventions alongside a three‐arm randomized controlled trial

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES), 29 which consisted of 16 questions to be answered with yes or no, and a weight of 1–9 is assigned to each item according to its importance 29 . The quality score was calculated by adding all scores of the question answered “yes.” The cutoff points were used to determine the quality: 0–24 (extremely poor quality); 25–49 (poor quality); 50–74 (fair quality); and 75–100 (high quality) 30 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

More work is needed on cost‐utility analyses of robotic‐assisted surgery

Bai

Han

et al. 2022

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.Methods: Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.Results: Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear."Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy

show abstract

“…Cultivating mentally healthy workplaces is important to promote the health, well‐being and productivity of workers. However, there is limited cost‐effectiveness evidence for preventive mental health interventions in the workplace (de Oliveira et al 2020). A recent model‐based economic evaluation undertaken by our team found that delivering cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to large organisations (with over 200 employees) resulted in productivity gains that were greater than the costs of the intervention, particularly when the intervention was delivered online (National Mental Health Commission 2020).…”

Section: What Is the ‘Output’ Of The Mental Health Sector And What Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Mental Health—A Commentary from a Health Economics Perspective

Mihalopoulos¹,

Lee²,

Engel³

et al. 2021

Australian Economic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Productivity Commission's Inquiry Report into Mental Health makes extensive recommendations to improve population mental health as a means of further enhancing productivity and economic growth. While providing an invaluable high‐level vision for reforming current mental health and social systems at a programmatic level, it lacks supporting evidence that would guide implementation of specific recommendations. We discuss important methodological considerations used to measure the output of the mental health sector and present clinical and cost‐effectiveness evidence, supporting selected recommendations. We suggest the development of a broad‐based health technology assessment process to facilitate consistent decision making across health and other government sectors.

show abstract

Economic analyses of mental health and substance use interventions in the workplace: a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis

Cited by 28 publications

References 67 publications

Reducing problematic alcohol use in employees: economic evaluation of guided and unguided web‐based interventions alongside a three‐arm randomized controlled trial

Reducing problematic alcohol use in employees: economic evaluation of guided and unguided web‐based interventions alongside a three‐arm randomized controlled trial

More work is needed on cost‐utility analyses of robotic‐assisted surgery

The Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Mental Health—A Commentary from a Health Economics Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About