Cargando…
A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention
This study conducted a cost and cost-benefit analysis of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work workplace intervention, designed to reduce sitting time. The study was a cluster two-armed randomised controlled trial involving 37 office clusters (146 desk-based workers) in a National Health Service Trust. The...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32070034 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041214 |
_version_ | 1783505575372390400 |
---|---|
author | Munir, Fehmidah Miller, Paul Biddle, Stuart J.H. Davies, Melanie J. Dunstan, David W. Esliger, Dale W. Gray, Laura J. O’Connell, Sophie E. Waheed, Ghazala Yates, Thomas Edwardson, Charlotte L. |
author_facet | Munir, Fehmidah Miller, Paul Biddle, Stuart J.H. Davies, Melanie J. Dunstan, David W. Esliger, Dale W. Gray, Laura J. O’Connell, Sophie E. Waheed, Ghazala Yates, Thomas Edwardson, Charlotte L. |
author_sort | Munir, Fehmidah |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study conducted a cost and cost-benefit analysis of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work workplace intervention, designed to reduce sitting time. The study was a cluster two-armed randomised controlled trial involving 37 office clusters (146 desk-based workers) in a National Health Service Trust. The intervention group received a height-adjustable workstation with supporting behaviour change strategies. The control group continued with usual practice. Self-report absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months; and organisational sickness absence records 12 months prior to, and 12 months of the intervention. Mean per employee costs associated with SMArT Work were calculated. Absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were estimated, and employer-recorded absence data and employee wage-banding were used to provide a human-capital-based estimate of costs to the organisation. The return-on-investment (ROI) and incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) were calculated. Intervention cost was £692.40 per employee. Cost-benefit estimates show a net saving of £1770.32 (95%CI £-354.40, £3895.04) per employee as a result of productivity increase. There were no significant differences in absence data compared to the control group. SMArT Work provides supporting evidence for policy-makers and employers on the cost benefits of reducing sitting time at work. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7068419 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70684192020-03-19 A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention Munir, Fehmidah Miller, Paul Biddle, Stuart J.H. Davies, Melanie J. Dunstan, David W. Esliger, Dale W. Gray, Laura J. O’Connell, Sophie E. Waheed, Ghazala Yates, Thomas Edwardson, Charlotte L. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article This study conducted a cost and cost-benefit analysis of the Stand More AT (SMArT) Work workplace intervention, designed to reduce sitting time. The study was a cluster two-armed randomised controlled trial involving 37 office clusters (146 desk-based workers) in a National Health Service Trust. The intervention group received a height-adjustable workstation with supporting behaviour change strategies. The control group continued with usual practice. Self-report absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months; and organisational sickness absence records 12 months prior to, and 12 months of the intervention. Mean per employee costs associated with SMArT Work were calculated. Absenteeism, presenteeism and work productivity were estimated, and employer-recorded absence data and employee wage-banding were used to provide a human-capital-based estimate of costs to the organisation. The return-on-investment (ROI) and incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) were calculated. Intervention cost was £692.40 per employee. Cost-benefit estimates show a net saving of £1770.32 (95%CI £-354.40, £3895.04) per employee as a result of productivity increase. There were no significant differences in absence data compared to the control group. SMArT Work provides supporting evidence for policy-makers and employers on the cost benefits of reducing sitting time at work. MDPI 2020-02-13 2020-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7068419/ /pubmed/32070034 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041214 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Munir, Fehmidah Miller, Paul Biddle, Stuart J.H. Davies, Melanie J. Dunstan, David W. Esliger, Dale W. Gray, Laura J. O’Connell, Sophie E. Waheed, Ghazala Yates, Thomas Edwardson, Charlotte L. A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title | A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title_full | A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title_fullStr | A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title_full_unstemmed | A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title_short | A Cost and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Stand More AT Work (SMArT Work) Intervention |
title_sort | cost and cost-benefit analysis of the stand more at work (smart work) intervention |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068419/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32070034 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041214 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT munirfehmidah acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT millerpaul acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT biddlestuartjh acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT daviesmelaniej acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT dunstandavidw acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT esligerdalew acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT graylauraj acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT oconnellsophiee acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT waheedghazala acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT yatesthomas acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT edwardsoncharlottel acostandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT munirfehmidah costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT millerpaul costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT biddlestuartjh costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT daviesmelaniej costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT dunstandavidw costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT esligerdalew costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT graylauraj costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT oconnellsophiee costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT waheedghazala costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT yatesthomas costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention AT edwardsoncharlottel costandcostbenefitanalysisofthestandmoreatworksmartworkintervention |