Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Department of Nursing Science, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 30;12(6):e060139. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060139.
To review the evidence on the economic evaluations of workplace-based interventions that are designed to reduce prolonged periods of occupational sitting.
An integrative review.
The search was conducted in 11 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, NHS-EED, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest, Cochrane library, Sportdiscus, Research Paper in Economics (RePeC), the International Health Economic Association (IHEA) and EconLit. The databases were searched for articles published from inception to January 2022. Subsequent citation searches were also conducted in Google Scholar. The items of the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist were used for quality appraisal of the included studies.
This review included five randomised control trails, including 757 office-based workers in high-income countries. The median quality appraisal score based on the CHEC items was 14 points (a range of 9-18). The mean duration of interventions was 33 weeks (a range of 4-52 weeks). Overall, the studies reported economic benefit when implemented to reduce occupational sitting time but no effect on absenteeism. From the societal perspective, the interventions (eg, the use of a sit-stand desk) were cost-effective.
The economic impact of workplace interventions implemented to reduce occupational sitting time is evident; however, the existing evidence is limited, which precludes strong conclusions. Cost-effectiveness is not often evaluated in the studies exploring workplace interventions that address occupational sitting time. Workplace interventions are still in the development and testing phase; thus, the challenge for future studies is to include economic evaluation of interventions addressing sedentary behaviour in workplaces.
CRD42021226275.
综述旨在减少职业久坐时间的基于工作场所干预措施的经济评价的证据。
综合回顾。
检索了 11 个数据库,包括 PubMed、Scopus、PsychINFO、NHS-EED、护理学和相关健康文献累积索引 (CINAHL)、ProQuest、Cochrane 图书馆、Sportdiscus、经济学研究论文 (RePeC)、国际卫生经济协会 (IHEA) 和 EconLit。从成立到 2022 年 1 月在数据库中检索文章。随后还在 Google Scholar 中进行了引文搜索。使用共识健康经济标准 (CHEC) 检查表的项目对纳入研究进行质量评估。
本综述纳入了五项随机对照试验,包括高收入国家的 757 名办公室工作人员。基于 CHEC 项目的中位数质量评估得分为 14 分(范围为 9-18)。干预措施的平均持续时间为 33 周(范围为 4-52 周)。总体而言,这些研究报告称,实施干预措施以减少职业久坐时间会带来经济效益,但对旷工没有影响。从社会角度来看,这些干预措施(例如使用坐立两用办公桌)具有成本效益。
减少职业久坐时间的工作场所干预措施的经济影响是明显的;然而,现有证据有限,无法得出强有力的结论。在探索解决职业久坐时间的工作场所干预措施的研究中,通常没有评估成本效益。工作场所干预措施仍处于开发和测试阶段;因此,未来研究的挑战是包括对干预措施的经济评估,以解决工作场所中的久坐行为。
PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42021226275。