Methodological Challenges in the Economic Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Programmes

Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-faceted Workplace Intervention to Reduce Musculoskeletal Pain in Nursing Staff: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial (INTEVAL_Spain)

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted workplace intervention to reduce musculoskeletal pain (MSP) in nursing staff.

METHODS

The study was a 1-year cluster-randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined participatory ergonomics, health promotion, and case management. The control group received usual care. Societal and health system perspectives were used. Costs included direct health and indirect costs. The effects were MSP and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). MSP was measured using the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire at baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-up. QALYs were measured using the EuroQol-5D-3L at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Incremental costs and QALYs were modelled using generalized linear models. MSP was analysed through generalized logistic models. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were constructed.

RESULTS

Total mean costs per person were €614 and €216 for the intervention and control group, respectively, with a societal perspective. The intervention mean cost was €38/person. From the societal perspective, the ICER showed that overall additional €68 (€9 from a health system perspective) were required to achieve 1-extra-percentage-point reduction of MSP. ICERs were €34 from the societal and €4 from the health system perspectives for neck, shoulders and upper back pain; €53 and €7 for low back; €179 and €23 for hands; €39 and €5 for legs; €115 and €14 for the knees; €36 and €5 for feet For MSP in the elbows. For participants with pain in the elbow, and for QALYs, the ICER showed that the intervention group was dominated by the control group.

CONCLUSION

This intervention was not cost-effective in terms of QALYs. However, in terms of MSP, with a willingness to pay of €100, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was around 90%. Further studies incorporating our recommendations are needed to confirm these findings.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ISRCTN15780649, retrospectively registered.

What are the economic dimensions of occupational health and how should they be measured? A qualitative study

Background

Decision makers want to know if there is a financial benefit in investing scarce resources in occupational health management (OHM). Economic evaluations (EEs) of OHM-strategies try to answer this question. However, EEs of OHM-strategies which are strongly marked by quantitative methods may be limited by contextual, qualitative residuals. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) explore important economic dimensions of OHM and (2) to discuss the methods used in current EEs for measuring these dimensions.

Methods

In this explorative qualitative study, OHM-specialists were recruited via the Swiss organisation for health promotion. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were performed from November 2020 until May 2021. Videotapes were transcribed verbatim and organised by using an open coding strategy. Codes were clustered and synthesised as themes (i.e. the dimensions of EEs of OHM) through a mix of inductive and deductive content analysis. Member check with eight participants was accomplished to validate the results.

Results

The interviews had an average duration of 70.5 min and yielded 609 individual codes. These codes were merged into 28 subcategories which were finally categorised into five main themes: Understanding of OHM, costs, benefits, environmental aspects, and evaluation of OHM. Participants stated that the greater part of costs and benefits cannot be quantified or monetised and thus, considered in quantitative EEs. For example, they see a culture of health as key component for a successful OHM-strategy. However, the costs to establish such a culture as well as its benefits are hard to quantify. Participants were highly critical of the use of absenteeism as a linear measure of productivity. Furthermore, they explained that single, rare events, such as a change in leadership, can have significant impact on employee health. However, such external influence factors are difficult to control.

Conclusions

Participants perceived costs and benefits of OHM significantly different than how they are represented in current EEs. According to the OHM-specialists, most benefits cannot be quantified and thus, monetised. These intangible benefits as well as critical influencing factors during the process should be assessed qualitatively and considered in EEs when using them as a legitimation basis vis-à-vis decision makers.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13659-y.

Advances in the methodological approach to friction period estimation: A European perspective

The friction cost approach (FCA) estimates the productivity costs of disease from an employer's perspective but the lack of estimates of friction periods in different countries limits its use. Our aim was to use labour market aggregates to generate two alternative estimates of the friction period for European countries and to apply the FCA to illustrate the impact on cancer-related lost productivity costs. We included thirty countries (EU 27 + the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway). Base-case Method 1BC used annual Dutch vacancy stock and flow data (2001-2019) to estimate friction periods for this country. A regression model was employed using Dutch data and country-specific vacancy and unemployment rates to generate country-specific friction period estimates for the other 29 countries. Alternative Method 2ALT used country-specific newly occupied jobs as a proxy vacancy flow variable and vacancy stock data to generate friction period estimates. These were applied, within the FCA, to premature cancer mortality data (from GLOBOCAN2018) for all cancers combined for Western European countries. Costs are in €2018. Method 1BC estimated friction periods in 2018 ranged from 70.8 days for Greece to 145.9 days for the Czech Republic, with a mean duration of 95.3 days. Method 2ALT produced a mean friction period of 80.0 days. On average, across countries, Method 2ALT friction periods were 15.4 days (-18.5%) shorter than Method 1BC estimates. Friction period estimates over the last decade were shorter than those for 2018 reflecting lower vacancy rates. Total cancer premature mortality costs according to FCA Method 1BC amounted to €1.0 billion in 2018 for Western Europe compared to €0.99 billion for Method 2ALT. We developed two alternative - and viable - methods to estimate country-specific friction periods. These approaches will enable researchers to apply the FCA to estimate the productivity cost of diseases across Europe from an employer's perspective.

Emerging Issues in Occupational Safety and Health

Working environments have various risks, which result in accidents and casualties. [...].