Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health (Jul 2022)

Cost and cost-effectiveness of the ‘Stand and Move at Work’ multicomponent intervention to reduce workplace sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk

  • Tzeyu L Michaud,
  • Wen You,
  • Paul A Estabrooks,
  • Krista Leonard,
  • Sarah A Rydell,
  • Sarah L Mullane,
  • Mark A Pereira,
  • Matthew P Buman

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4022
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 48, no. 5
pp. 399 – 409

Abstract

Read online

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Keywords