Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 3/2006

01.09.2006 | Original Paper

Practice and potential of economic evaluation of workplace-based interventions for occupational health and safety

verfasst von: Emile Tompa, Roman Dolinschi, Claire de Oliveira

Erschienen in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Ausgabe 3/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background: We review economic analyses in studies of workplace-based occupational health and safety interventions in order to report on evidence of their financial merits and assess the quality of application of economic evaluation methodologies. The focus of the review is interventions applicable to an office setting. Materials and Methods: We draw on several systematic reviews to identify studies that consider both the costs and consequences of an intervention, or simply the consequences in monetary terms. Results: In total, we identified 23 studies which we included in our final synthesis. More than half of these studies considered only the consequences in monetary terms, rather than both the costs and consequences associated with the intervention. Conclusions: In reviewing the studies, we identified a number of methodological shortcomings which we discuss in detail. A key message from our review is that there is a need for economic expertise in the multidisciplinary research teams evaluating workplace-based occupational health and safety interventions.
Fußnoten
1
To address this need, the Institute for Work & Health hosted an International Workshop on Developing Good Practice in the Economic Evaluation of Workplace Interventions for Health and Safety in the spring of 2006.
 
2
Full randomization was not feasible due to the possibility of knowledge sharing between the two intervention groups as well as between the intervention groups and the control group.
 
3
Loisel et al. [32] undertakes a cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the public, monopoly insurer in Quebec. Since this public insurer is a not-for-profit organization, savings arising from the reduction in claims cost are generally passed on to employers in the form of lower premiums. In consideration of this fact, cost-benefit analysis might not be the best economic evaluation methodology to employ for this perspective. A more appropriate measure of consequences might be the reduction in disability days or number of claims, which suggests a cost-effectiveness analysis (as opposed to cost-benefit analysis).
 
4
A few studies also noted a Hawthorne effect, in which the training component of an intervention increased both awareness and reporting of injuries.
 
5
An example where this is not the case is when an organization experiences a reduction in premiums without a comparable reduction in the burden of injuries.
 
6
At one level the question is whether a dollar in the public sector is worth more than a dollar in the private sector, given the current distribution of resources between the two sectors. It may be that the current distribution is deemed optimal, in which case incremental transfers to the government have no value at the societal level. There is no easy way to address the issue about the optimal distribution of resources. An alternative approach would be to consider the level of employment that would be sufficient to maintain the optimal level of taxation. An intervention that maintains this optimal level with lower level of labour input would be considered a valued productivity improvement.
 
7
The distinction between the sticker price and resource cost is an issue particularly if a broader, societal perspective is taken.
 
8
This is due to the nature of the interventions being different, but also because the analytical and computational approaches used by these studies are different.
 
Literatur
1.
Amick BC III, Robertson MM, DeRango K, Bazzani L, Moore A, Rooney T, Harrist R. Effect of office ergonomics intervention on reducing musculoskeletal symptoms. Spine 2003;28:2706–11.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Arnetz BB, Sjogren B, Rydehn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: a prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:499–506.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Baxter K, Harrison D. A simple cost benefit analysis for an ergonomics “train-the-trainer” program. In Ergonomics for the New Millennium. San Diego, California, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2000, pp. 1–3.
4.
Bernacki EJ, Guidera JA, Schaefer JA, Tsai S. A facilitated early return to work program at a large urban medical center. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42:1172–77.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bradley W. Management and Prevention of on the Job Injuries. AAOHN J 1996;44:402–05.PubMed
6.
Brewer S, Van Eerd D, Amick BC III. Systematic review of computer-related office interventions to improve musculoskeletal and visual health. In progress 2005.
7.
Butler RJ, Johnson WG, Baldwin ML. Managing work disability: why first return to work is not a measure of success. Ind Labour Relat Rev 1995;48:452–69.CrossRef
8.
Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NIC technological assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339–47.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Davis PM, Badii M, Yassi A. Preventing disability from occupational musculoskeletal injuries in an urban, acute and tertiary care hospital: results from a prevention and early active return-to-work safely program. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46:1253–62.PubMed
10.
de Jong AM, Vink P. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Appl Ergon 2002;33:439–48.PubMedCrossRef
11.
DeRango K, Amick BC III, Robertson MM, Rooney T, Moore A, Bazzani L. The productivity consequences of two ergonomic interventions. Working paper #222, 1–39. Toronto, Canada, Institute for Work & Health 2003.
12.
DeRango K, Franzini L. Economic evaluations of workplace health interventions: theory and literature review. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Quick JC, Tetrick LE editors, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003, pp. 417–30.
13.
Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 1997.
14.
Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005;43.
15.
Evanoff BA, Bohr PC, Wolf LD. Effects of a participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. Am J Ind Med 1999;35:358–65.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Franche R-L, Cullen K, Frank J, Clarke J, MacEachen E, Sinclair S, Irvin E, Reardon R, Raj A, Cole DC, Pennick V. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature. Toronto, Canada, Institute for Work & Health; 2004, pp. 1–52.
17.
Francis J, Dressel DL. Workspace influence on worker performance and satisfaction: an experimental field study. In Promoting health and productivity in the computerized office: Models of successful ergonomic interventions. Sauter SL, Dainoff M, Smith M editors, New York: Taylor and Francis; 1990, pp. 3–16.
18.
Goggins R. Table prepared for the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. http://​www.​lni.​wa.​gov/​Safety/​Topics/​Ergonomics/​default.​asp 2005.
19.
Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, Fryback DG, Hadorn DC, Kamlet MS et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC editors, New York: Oxford University Press; 1996, pp. 82–134.
20.
Goodman RC. An aggressive return-to-work program in surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a comparison of costs. Plastic and Reconstructive Surg 1992;89:715–17.CrossRef
21.
Goossens M, Evers S, Vlaeyen J, Rutten-an Molken M, van der Linden S. Principles of economic evaluation for interventions of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Eur J Pain 1999;3:343–53.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Corso PS. Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press 2003.
23.
Halpern CA, Dawson KP. Design and implementation of a participatory ergonomics program for machine sewing tasks. Int J Ind Ergon 1997;20:429–40.CrossRef
24.
Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H, Mutanen P, Rissanen P, Pahkajarvi H, Levon H, Karpoff H. Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2003;28:533–41.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Kemmlert K. Economic impact of ergonomic intervention—four case studies. J Occup Rehabil 1996;6:17–32.CrossRef
26.
Kerr M. The importance of psychosocial risk factors in injury. In Injury and the new world of work. Sullivan TJ editor, Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press; 2000, pp. 93–114.
27.
Lanoie P, Tavenas S. Costs and benefits of preventing workplace accidents: the case of participatory ergonomics. Safety Sci 1996;24:181–96.CrossRef
28.
Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Shin C, Ladrigan PJ. Occupational injury and illness in the United States. Arch Int Med 1997;157(July):1537–1568.
29.
Lewis R, Krawiec M, Confer E, Agopsowicz D, Crandall E. Musculoskeletal disorder worker compensation costs and injuries before and after an office ergonomic program. Int J Ind Ergon 2002;29:95–9.CrossRef
30.
Li J, Wolf L, Evanoff B. Use of mechanical patient lifts decreased musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries among health care workers. Injury Prev 2004;10:212–16.CrossRef
31.
Lilienfeld DE, Stolley PD. Foundations of Epidemiology, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press 1994.
32.
Loisel P, Lemaire J, Poitras S, Durand MJ, Champagne F, Stock S, Diallo B, Tremblay C. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of a disability prevention model for back pain management: a six year follow up study. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:807–15.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Moore JS, Garg A. The effectiveness of participatory ergonomics in the red meat packing indursty: evaluation of a corporation. Int J Ind Ergon 1998;21:47–58.CrossRef
34.
Nerhood H, Rael J. Low tech, low cost approach to office ergonomics. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety VII. Bittner AC Jr., Champney PC edsitors, Taylor and Francis, Ltd.; 1995, pp. 363–7.
35.
Niven KJM. A review of the application of health economics to health and safety in healthcare. Health Policy 2002;61:291–304.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Norman R, Wells R. Ergonomic interventions for reducing musculoskeletal disorders. In Injury and the New World of Work. Sullivan TJ editor, Vancouver: UBC Press; 2000, pp. 115–39.
37.
Reed P. The medical disability advisor: workplace guidelines for disability duration. Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: LRP Publications; 1994.
38.
Reese S. Helping workers stretch away strain: a semiconductor equipment manufacturer slashes its on-the-job injury rate with a low-tech program and 16 min. a day. Business Health 1998;16:21–2.PubMed
39.
40.
Rivilis I, Van Eerd D, Cullen K, Cole D, Irvin E, Tyson J, Mahood Q. Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions: a systematic review. Submitted to: Ergonomics 2005.
41.
Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
42.
Seeley PA, Marklin RW. Business case for implementing two ergonomic interventions at an electric power utility. Appl Ergon 2003;34:429–39.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Shannon HS, Lowe GS. How many injured workers do not file claims for workers’ compensation benefits? Am J Ind Med 2002;42:467–73.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Tadano P. A safety prevention program for VDT operators: one company’s approach. J Hand Ther 1990;3:64–71.
45.
Thompson DA. Effect of exercise breaks on musculoskeletal strain among data-entry operators: a case study. In Promoting health and productivity in the computerized office: models of successful ergonomic interventions. Dainoff M editor, Taylor & Francis 1990.
46.
Tompa E. Productivity and health: empirical evidence and policy implications. In The Review of Economic Performance and Social Progress: towards a Social Understanding of Productivity. Sharpe A, St-Hillaire F, Banting K editors, Montreal/Ottawa: the Institute for Research on Public Policy and Centre for the Study of Living Standards; 2002, pp. 181–202.
47.
Yassi A, Tate R, Cooper JE, Snow C, Vallentyne S, Khokhar JB. Early intervention for back-injured nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital: an evaluation of the effectiveness and cost benefits of a two-year pilot project. Occup Med 1995;45:209–14.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Practice and potential of economic evaluation of workplace-based interventions for occupational health and safety
verfasst von
Emile Tompa
Roman Dolinschi
Claire de Oliveira
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2006
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Ausgabe 3/2006
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9035-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2006

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 3/2006 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Upper extremity disorders in the workplace: Costs and outcomes beyond the first return to work

Original Paper

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Massage Practitioners

Original Paper

Women's Experience in the Workers’ Compensation System

Editorial Comment

Innovative applications of epidemiology, evidenced based interventions and economic analyses of office related upper extremity disorders

Original Paper

Workplace interventions to prevent musculoskeletal and visual symptoms and disorders among computer users: A systematic review

Original Paper

Epidemiology of work related neck and upper limb problems: Psychosocial and personal risk factors (Part I) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural perspective (Part II)