The cost-effectiveness of the RSI QuickScan intervention programme for computer workers: Results of an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

BackgroundThe costs of arm, shoulder and neck symptoms are high. In order to decrease these costs employers implement interventions aimed at reducing these symptoms. One frequently used intervention is the RSI QuickScan intervention programme. It establishes a risk profile of the target population and subsequently advises interventions following a decision tree based on that risk profile. The purpose of this study was to perform an economic evaluation, from both the societal and companies' perspective, of the RSI QuickScan intervention programme for computer workers. In this study, effectiveness was defined at three levels: exposure to risk factors, prevalence of arm, shoulder and neck symptoms, and days of sick leave.MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participating computer workers from 7 companies (N = 638) were assigned to either the intervention group (N = 320) or the usual care group (N = 318) by means of cluster randomisation (N = 50). The intervention consisted of a tailor-made programme, based on a previously established risk profile. At baseline, 6 and 12 month follow-up, the participants completed the RSI QuickScan questionnaire. Analyses to estimate the effect of the intervention were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. To compare costs between groups, confidence intervals for cost differences were computed by bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrapping.ResultsThe mean intervention costs, paid by the employer, were 59 euro per participant in the intervention and 28 euro in the usual care group. Mean total health care and non-health care costs per participant were 108 euro in both groups. As to the cost-effectiveness, improvement in received information on healthy computer use as well as in their work posture and movement was observed at higher costs. With regard to the other risk factors, symptoms and sick leave, only small and non-significant effects were found.ConclusionsIn this study, the RSI QuickScan intervention programme did not prove to be cost-effective from the both the societal and companies' perspective and, therefore, this study does not provide a financial reason for implementing this intervention. However, with a relatively small investment, the programme did increase the number of workers who received information on healthy computer use and improved their work posture and movement.Trial registrationTrial registration number: NTR1117

Computer‐related visual symptoms in office workers

“…Musculoskeletal injuries associated with computer use may account for at least half of all reported work-related injuries in the USA. 36 Indeed, Speklé et al 37 noted that conservative estimates of the cost of musculoskeletal disorders to the United States economy as reported in 2001, when measured by compensation costs, lost wages and reduced productivity were between 45 and 54 billion dollars annually or 0.8% of gross domestic product. Further, the prevalence of neck, shoulder and arm symptoms in computer workers may be as high as 62%.…”

Computer vision syndrome: a review of ocular causes and potential treatments

“…Musculoskeletal injuries associated with computer use may account for at least half of all reported work-related injuries in the USA. 21 Indeed, Speklé et al 22 noted that conservative estimates of the cost of musculoskeletal disorders to the United States economy as reported in 2001, when measured by compensation costs, lost wages and reduced productivity were between 45 and 54 billion dollars annually or 0.8% of gross domestic product. Further, the prevalence of neck, shoulder and arm symptoms in computer workers may be as high as 62%.…”

A research framework for the development and implementation of interventions preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders

“…In the previous decades there has been an increase in the number of studies regarding primary prevention of MSD, across a wide range of scientific disciplines, including epidemiology (29), applied physiology (30), biomechanics (31), physical and organizational (macro) ergonomics (25,32), behavioral sciences (33), production engineering (34), organizational management (35), health and business economics (36), and implementation science (37). These disciplines vary largely in their contribution to work-related MSD prevention research, ranging from classic injury surveillance and etiological studies to detailed laboratory studies and animal models exploring injury mechanisms, and studies evaluating interventions and implementation.…”