Braun T, Bambra C, Booth M, Adetayo K, Milne E
Tees Valley Public Health Shared Service, Redheugh House, Thornaby Place, Stockton-on-Tees TS17 6BW, UK.
Wolfson Research Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Durham University, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
J Public Health (Oxf). 2015 Mar;37(1):138-42. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu043. Epub 2014 Jul 6.
This paper presents the results of an evaluation of the Better Health at Work Award-a structured regional workplace health programme which combined changes to the work environment with lifestyle interventions.
Baseline and follow-up data on sickness-absence rates and programme costs were collected retrospectively via a web survey of all participating organizations. Changes over time were calculated using 95% confidence intervals of the mean, supplemented by hypothesis testing using a t-test. The indicative cost-benefits of the intervention were also calculated.
Participation was associated with a mean reduction in sickness absence of 0.26-1.6 days per employee per year depending on the length and level of participation in the programme. The estimated cost for the programme was £3 per sickness-absence day saved.
These results suggest that the Better Health at Work Award could be a cost-effective way of improving health and reducing sickness absence particularly in the public sector. However, controlled evaluations of future interventions are needed.
本文介绍了“工作场所健康改善奖”评估结果，这是一项结构化的地区性工作场所健康计划，将工作环境的改变与生活方式干预相结合。
通过对所有参与组织进行网络调查，回顾性收集病假率和项目成本的基线及随访数据。使用均值的95%置信区间计算随时间的变化，并辅以t检验进行假设检验。还计算了干预措施的指示性成本效益。
根据参与该计划的时长和程度，参与该计划与每名员工每年平均减少0.26 - 1.6天病假相关。该计划的估计成本为每节省1天病假3英镑。
这些结果表明，“工作场所健康改善奖”可能是改善健康和减少病假的一种具有成本效益的方式，特别是在公共部门。然而，未来的干预措施需要进行对照评估。
