Loading...
Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce office workers’ sitting time: The"Stand up Victoria" trial
Gao, Lan Flego, Anna Dunstan, David W. Winkler, Elizabeth A. H. Healy, Genevieve N. Eakin, Elizabeth G. Willenberg, Lisa Owen, Neville LaMontagne, Anthony D. Lal, Anita
Gao, Lan
Flego, Anna
Dunstan, David W.
Winkler, Elizabeth A. H.
Healy, Genevieve N.
Eakin, Elizabeth G.
Willenberg, Lisa
Owen, Neville
LaMontagne, Anthony D.
Lal, Anita
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the economic credentials of a workplace-delivered intervention to reduce sitting time among desk-based workers. Methods: We performed within-trial cost-efficacy analysis and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and recruited 231 desk-based workers, aged 24–65 years, across 14 worksites of one organization. Multicomponent workplace-delivered intervention was compared to usual practice. Main outcome measures including total device-measured workplace sitting time, body mass index (BMI), self-reported health-related quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life-8D, AQoL-8D), and absenteeism measured at 12 months. Results: Compared to usual practice, the intervention was associated with greater cost (AU$431/person), benefits in terms of reduced workplace sitting time [-46.8 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% confidence interval (CI): -69.9– -23.7] and increased workplace standing time (42.2 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% CI 23.8–60.6). However, there were no significant benefits for BMI [0.148 kg/m2 (95% CI-1.407–1.703)], QoL-8D [-0.006 (95% CI -0.074–0.063)] and absenteeism [2.12 days (95% CI -2.01–6.26)]. The incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) ranged from AU$9.94 cost/minute reduction in workplace sitting time to AU$13.37/minute reduction in overall sitting time. CEA showed the intervention contributed to higher life year (LY) gains [0.01 (95% CI 0.009–0.011)], higher health-adjusted life year (HALY) gains [0.012 (95% CI 0.0105 – 0.0135)], and higher net costs [AU$344 (95% CI $331–358)], with corresponding ICER of AU$34 443/LY and AU$28 703/HALY if the intervention effects were to be sustained for five-years. CEA results were sensitive to assumptions surrounding intervention-effect decay rate and discount rate. Conclusions: The intervention was cost-effective over the lifetime of the cohort when scaled up to the national workforce and provides important
Keywords
cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-efficacy, economic evaluation, evaluation, intervention, office worker, productivity, randomized controlled trial, RCT, sit-stand workstation, sitting, sitting time, Stand-Up Victoria, workplace intervention
Date
2018
Type
Journal article
Journal
Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health
Book
Volume
44
Issue
5
Page Range
503-511
Article Number
ACU Department
Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research
Faculty of Health Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
Collections
Relation URI
Source URL
Event URL
Open Access Status
License
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
File Access
Controlled