Center for Reducing Health Disparities, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2022 Jul 1;48(5):399-409. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.4022. Epub 2022 Mar 25.
Few studies have reported the cost and cost-effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sedentary time. The purpose of this study was to complete an economic evaluation of a multilevel intervention to reduce sitting time and increase light-intensity physical activity (LPA) among employees.
We conducted a retrospective within-trial cost and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to compare a 12-month multilevel intervention with (STAND+) and without (MOVE+) a sit-stand workstation, across 24 worksites (N=630 employee participants) enrolled in a cluster randomized clinical trial. We estimated the intervention costs using activity-based costing strategy. The intervention costs were further expressed as per person and per worksite. CEA was conducted using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) metric, expressed as costs for additional unit of sitting time (minute/day), LPA (minutes/day), cardiometabolic risk score, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) increased/decreased at 12 months. We assessed the cost analysis and CEA from the organizational (ie, employer) perspective with a one-year time horizon.
Total intervention costs were $134 and $72 per person, and $3939 and $1650 per worksite for the STAND+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 354) and MOVE+ (N worksites = 12; N employees = 276) interventions, respectively. The ICER was $1 (95% CI $0.8-1.4) for each additional minute reduction of workplace sitting time (standardized to 8-hour workday); and $4656 per QALY gained at 12 months. There was a modest and non-significant change of loss of work productivity improvement (-0.03 hours, 95% CI -4.16-4.09 hours), which was associated with a $0.34 return for every $1 invested.
The multi-level intervention with sit-stand workstations has the potential to be widely implemented to reduce workplace sitting time. Future research into work productivity outcomes in terms of cost-benefits for employers is warranted.
很少有研究报告减少久坐时间的工作场所干预措施的成本和成本效益。本研究的目的是对一项多层次干预措施进行经济评估，以减少员工的久坐时间并增加低强度体力活动（LPA）。
我们进行了一项回顾性试验内成本和成本效益分析（CEA），比较了一项为期 12 个月的多层次干预措施（STAND+，含可坐站式工作站）与无（MOVE+，无可坐站式工作站）的干预措施，涉及 24 个工作场所（N=630 名员工参与者），这些参与者参加了一项基于群组的随机临床试验。我们使用基于活动的成本核算策略来估算干预成本。干预成本进一步表示为每人和每个工作场所的成本。CEA 使用增量成本效益比（ICER）指标进行，以 12 个月时的额外久坐时间（分钟/天）、LPA（分钟/天）、心血管代谢风险评分和增加/减少的质量调整生命年（QALY）的单位成本表示。我们从组织（即雇主）的角度评估了为期一年的成本分析和 CEA。
STAND+（N 工作场所=12；N 员工=354）和 MOVE+（N 工作场所=12；N 员工=276）干预措施的总干预成本分别为每人 134 美元和 72 美元，每个工作场所 3939 美元和 1650 美元。每减少一分钟工作场所久坐时间（标准化为 8 小时工作日）的 ICER 为 1 美元（95%置信区间为 0.8-1.4）；在 12 个月时，每增加一个 QALY 的成本为 4656 美元。工作生产力提高的损失略有且无统计学意义（减少 0.03 小时，95%置信区间为-4.16-4.09 小时），这与每投资 1 美元可获得 0.34 美元的回报相关。
具有可坐站式工作站的多层次干预措施具有广泛实施的潜力，可以减少工作场所的久坐时间。未来有必要研究雇主的工作生产力成果的成本效益。
