Cargando…

An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, from a healthcare perspective, a specific occupational health intervention is cost effective in reducing sickness absence when compared with usual care in occupational health in workers with high risk of sickness absence. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a ran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taimela, S, Justén, S, Aronen, P, Sintonen, H, Läärä, E, Malmivaara, A, Tiekso, J, Aro, T
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.033167
_version_ 1782159805828300800
author Taimela, S
Justén, S
Aronen, P
Sintonen, H
Läärä, E
Malmivaara, A
Tiekso, J
Aro, T
author_facet Taimela, S
Justén, S
Aronen, P
Sintonen, H
Läärä, E
Malmivaara, A
Tiekso, J
Aro, T
author_sort Taimela, S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, from a healthcare perspective, a specific occupational health intervention is cost effective in reducing sickness absence when compared with usual care in occupational health in workers with high risk of sickness absence. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. 418 workers with high risk of sickness absence from one corporation were randomised to intervention (n = 209) or to usual care (n = 209). The subjects in the intervention group were invited to occupational health service for a consultation. The intervention included, if appropriate, a referral to specialist treatment. Register data of sickness absence were available for 384 subjects and questionnaire data on healthcare costs from 272 subjects. Missing direct total cost data were imputed using a two-part regression model. Primary outcome measures were sickness absence days and direct healthcare costs up to 12 months after randomisation. Cost effectiveness (CE) was expressed as an incremental CE ratio, CE plane and CE acceptability curve with both available direct total cost data and missing total cost data imputed. RESULTS: After one year, the mean of sickness absence was 30 days in the usual care group (n = 192) and 11 days less (95% CI 1 to 20 days) in the intervention group (n = 192). Among the employees with available cost data, the mean days of sickness absence were 22 and 24, and the mean total cost €974 and €1049 in the intervention group (n = 134) and in the usual care group (n = 138), respectively. The intervention turned out to be dominant—both cost saving and more effective than usual occupational health care. The saving was €43 per sickness absence day avoided with available direct total cost data, and €17 with missing total cost data imputed. CONCLUSIONS: One year follow-up data show that occupational health intervention for workers with high risk of sickness absence is a cost effective use of healthcare resources.
format Text
id pubmed-2564864
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-25648642008-10-24 An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial Taimela, S Justén, S Aronen, P Sintonen, H Läärä, E Malmivaara, A Tiekso, J Aro, T Occup Environ Med Original Articles OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, from a healthcare perspective, a specific occupational health intervention is cost effective in reducing sickness absence when compared with usual care in occupational health in workers with high risk of sickness absence. METHODS: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. 418 workers with high risk of sickness absence from one corporation were randomised to intervention (n = 209) or to usual care (n = 209). The subjects in the intervention group were invited to occupational health service for a consultation. The intervention included, if appropriate, a referral to specialist treatment. Register data of sickness absence were available for 384 subjects and questionnaire data on healthcare costs from 272 subjects. Missing direct total cost data were imputed using a two-part regression model. Primary outcome measures were sickness absence days and direct healthcare costs up to 12 months after randomisation. Cost effectiveness (CE) was expressed as an incremental CE ratio, CE plane and CE acceptability curve with both available direct total cost data and missing total cost data imputed. RESULTS: After one year, the mean of sickness absence was 30 days in the usual care group (n = 192) and 11 days less (95% CI 1 to 20 days) in the intervention group (n = 192). Among the employees with available cost data, the mean days of sickness absence were 22 and 24, and the mean total cost €974 and €1049 in the intervention group (n = 134) and in the usual care group (n = 138), respectively. The intervention turned out to be dominant—both cost saving and more effective than usual occupational health care. The saving was €43 per sickness absence day avoided with available direct total cost data, and €17 with missing total cost data imputed. CONCLUSIONS: One year follow-up data show that occupational health intervention for workers with high risk of sickness absence is a cost effective use of healthcare resources. BMJ Publishing Group 2008-04 2007-10-12 /pmc/articles/PMC2564864/ /pubmed/17933885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.033167 Text en © Taimela et al 2008 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Taimela, S
Justén, S
Aronen, P
Sintonen, H
Läärä, E
Malmivaara, A
Tiekso, J
Aro, T
An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title_full An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title_short An occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. Cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
title_sort occupational health intervention programme for workers at high risk for sickness absence. cost effectiveness analysis based on a randomised controlled trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17933885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.033167
work_keys_str_mv AT taimelas anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT justens anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT aronenp anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT sintonenh anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT laarae anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT malmivaaraa anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT tieksoj anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT arot anoccupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT taimelas occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT justens occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT aronenp occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT sintonenh occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT laarae occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT malmivaaraa occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT tieksoj occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT arot occupationalhealthinterventionprogrammeforworkersathighriskforsicknessabsencecosteffectivenessanalysisbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial