Suppr超能文献

一项针对高病假风险工人的职业健康干预计划。基于随机对照试验的成本效益分析。

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

作者信息

Taimela S, Justén S, Aronen P, Sintonen H, Läärä E, Malmivaara A, Tiekso J, Aro T

机构信息

Evalua International, PO Box 35, FIN-01531 Vantaa, Finland.

出版信息

Occup Environ Med. 2008 Apr;65(4):242-8. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.033167. Epub 2007 Oct 12.

Abstract

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 euro974 and euro1049 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 euro43 per sickness absence day avoided with available direct total cost data, and euro17 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.

摘要

目的

从医疗保健角度确定,与针对高缺勤风险工人的职业健康常规护理相比,一种特定的职业健康干预措施在减少病假方面是否具有成本效益。

方法

与一项随机对照试验同时进行经济评估。从一家公司选取418名高缺勤风险工人,随机分为干预组(n = 209)或常规护理组(n = 209)。干预组的受试者被邀请到职业健康服务机构进行咨询。如有必要,干预措施包括转介至专科治疗。384名受试者可获取病假登记数据,272名受试者可获取医疗保健成本问卷数据。使用两部分回归模型估算缺失的直接总成本数据。主要结局指标为随机分组后12个月内的病假天数和直接医疗保健成本。成本效益(CE)以增量CE比率、CE平面和CE可接受性曲线表示,同时使用可用的直接总成本数据和估算的缺失总成本数据。

结果

一年后,常规护理组(n = 192)的平均病假天数为30天,干预组(n = 192)少11天(95%可信区间为1至20天)。在有成本数据的员工中,干预组(n = 134)和常规护理组(n = 138)的平均病假天数分别为22天和24天,平均总成本分别为974欧元和1049欧元。结果表明该干预措施具有优势——既节省成本又比常规职业健康护理更有效。对于可用直接总成本数据,每避免一天病假节省43欧元,对于估算的缺失总成本数据,节省17欧元。

结论

一年的随访数据表明,对高缺勤风险工人进行职业健康干预是一种具有成本效益的医疗资源利用方式。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6836/2564864/b068da2d820b/BWC-65-04-0242-f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验