Economic evaluation of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress

Oostrom, Sandra H van; Heymans, Martijn W.; Vet, Henrica C.W. de; Tulder, Maurits W. van; Mechelen, Willem van; Anema, Johannes R.

doi:10.1136/oem.2009.051979

Cited by 40 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, we assumed that in case of work resumption in regular work with ending of the sickness benefit, there was no net productivity gain from a societal perspective. This is comparable to other recent economic evaluations of participatory RTW interventions for regular employees (20,21), ie, in case of work resumption of regular employees (and subsequent ending of sick leave) production loss ends and no net productivity gain is assumed.…”

Section: Costs Resources and Valuationsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Similarly, an employer is an important decision-maker regarding payment of occupational healthcare-related costs for work-disabled employees, such as payment of wages and provision of vocational rehabilitation support. Hence, in line with recent economical evaluations for participatory RTW interventions for regular employees (20,21), an economical evaluation was conducted from the social insurer's and societal perspective. From the social insurer's perspective, costs for occupational healthcare and paid sickness benefit were included.…”

Section: The Dutch Social Security Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders

Vermeulen¹,

Heijmans²,

Anema³

et al. 2012

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders by Vermeulen SJ, Heymans MW, Anema JR, Schellart AJM, van Mechelen W, van der Beek AJThe new participatory return-to-work program for temporary agency workers and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to MSD, was more costly than usual care, but enhanced work resumption and generated a net economic benefit for society due to productivity gain. Shared investments by government and employers are needed to enhance labor force participation of vulnerable working populations. Original article Scand J Work Environ Health. 2013;39(1):46-56. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3314 Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, -utility, and -benefit of a newly developed participatory return-to-work (RTW) program for temporary agency and unemployed workers, sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders. AffiliationMethods An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up. Temporary agency and unemployed workers, sick-listed for 2-8 weeks due to musculoskeletal disorders, were randomized to the participatory RTW program (N=79) or usual care group (N=84). The new RTW program was aimed at making a consensus-based RTW action plan with the possibility of a temporary (therapeutic) workplace. Effect outcomes were sustainable RTW and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Healthcare utilization was measured from the social insurer's perspective and societal perspective. . The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the new intervention was more effective but also more costly than usual care (ie, to gain RTW one day earlier in the participatory RTW program group, approximately 80 euros needed to be invested). The net societal benefit of the participatory RTW program compared to care-as-usual was 2073 euros per worker. ConclusionsThe newly developed participatory RTW program was more effective but also more costly than usual care. The program enhanced work resumption and generated a net socioeconomic benefit. Hence, implementation of the participatory RTW program may have potential to achieve a sustainable contribution of vulnerable workers to the labor force.

show abstract

Section: Costs Resources and Valuationsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: The Dutch Social Security Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders

Vermeulen¹,

Heijmans²,

Anema³

et al. 2012

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A generic national or regional price weight was used in 13 studies (19%), 9 (13%) used a worker-specific weight, 3 (4%) the industry or company average, and 1 (1%) a job average with age differentiation. Variations -such as using the mean annual salary per staff member in the NHSL (47), the study group average (75, 100), or the national average (41, 45,48,56,60,62,64,(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)72,(83)(84)(85)87,89,93,95,97,99,103,107,(118)(119)(120)(121)(122)(123)(124) 47,63,65,74,(77)(78)(79)81,82,87,(100)(101)(102)108,109,112,114,117,(126)(127)(128) (48, 52, 53, 58, 65-67, 69,...…”

Section: Valuing Time Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Steel¹,

Godderis²,

Luyten³

2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Productivity estimation is a key factor in demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of occupational health and safety (OHS). However, the studies analysed in this systematic review lack standardization, exclude important factors, and the precision, validity and reliability of estimates widely differs. Researchers should be aware of how the method and precision of estimating productivity affects results, and, ultimately, the economic attractiveness of OHS. Key terms: absenteeism; cost-effectiveness; economic evaluation; friction cost; human capital; indirect cost; measurement; methodology; occupational health; occupational health and safety; presenteeism; productivity estimation; review; systematic review; valuation; work This article in PubMed: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29405241 Additional materialPlease note that there is additional material available belonging to this article on the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health -website. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first 1Review Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review by Jonas Steel, MSc, 1 Lode Godderis, MD,2,3 Jeroen Luyten, PhD 1,4 Steel J, Godderis L, Luyten J. Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health -online first. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3715Objectives Occupational health and safety (OHS) interventions' effect on worker productivity is an essential, but complex element of the value of these programs. The trustworthiness of economic evaluation studies, aiming to provide guidance to decision-makers in the field of OHS, depends at least partly on how accurately productivity changes are measured. We aim to review the methods used to estimate productivity changes in recently published economic evaluations of OHS interventions. MethodsWe performed systematic searches of economic evaluations of OHS programs published between 2007 and 2017 and reviewed these studies' methods to quantify the programs' impact on worker productivity ResultsOf the 90 identified studies, 44 used a human capital approach, 17 a friction cost approach, 13 stated productivity in natural units (eg, a cost-per-absence-day-avoided), 7 made use of compensation expenses, 4 used output-based methods, 4 an "ad hoc" approach, and 1 study did not state its method. Different approaches were combined in 19 studies. Within these methods, we observed a wide diversity in their precise implementation, especially regarding the measurement and valuation of absenteeism and presenteeism.Conclusions Productivity is a key element of the economic attractiveness of investing in OHS. Economic evaluation studies of OHS would benefit from more methodological standardization in their approach to quantifying productivity change. Future research should better account for the methodological uncertainty that occurs in estimating it in order to demonstrate the impact that particular choices and approaches to productivity estimation ca...

show abstract

“…A few studies have performed economic evaluation, but they focus on specific populations, for example, correctional officers (McCraty et al, 2009) and nurses (Noben et al, 2014) who may have specific needs; focus on a specific intervention programme, for example, a return to work intervention (van Oostrom et al, 2010), collaborative care (Goorden et al, 2014) or a collaborative care approach (Wang et al, 2006) and follow-up is rarely longer than 1 year. Thus, our study adds to the literature by applying a 27 month time frame, comparing across 3 types of standard, evidencebased interventions and considering the impact in relation to the general population of employed individuals in Germany.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the economic impact of screening and treatment for depression in the workplace

Evans‐Lacko

Koeser

Knapp

et al. 2016

European Neuropsychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depression is the most common psychiatric illness and cause of disability, and associated with durable impacts on productivity and represents one of the major causes of workplace absenteeism and presenteeism. Few studies, however, examine the economic impact of treatment of depression in the workplace, particularly from the perspective of the employer. We estimated the relative costeffectiveness of treatment for employees with depression in the workplace. We used a decisionanalytic model to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of (i) psychotherapy, (ii) pharmacotherapy and (iii) combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy and whether they reduce sickness, absenteeism and presenteeism for people with depression. Costs and savings to the employer were also estimated, and policy recommendations made about how best to translate this evidence into practice. Both pharmacotherapy treatment and psychotherapy treatment were found to be costsaving from the perspective of the employer. Psychotherapy was found to be the most cost-effective option with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €22,225. This study provides evidence that screening and treatment for depression in the workplace is cost-effective and represents a worthwhile investment from the business perspective.

show abstract

Economic evaluation of a workplace intervention for sick-listed employees with distress

Cited by 40 publications

References 26 publications

Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders

Economic evaluation of a participatory return-to-work intervention for temporary agency and unemployed workers sick-listed due to musculoskeletal disorders

Productivity estimation in economic evaluations of occupational health and safety interventions: a systematic review

Evaluating the economic impact of screening and treatment for depression in the workplace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About