You are viewing a javascript disabled version of the site. Please enable Javascript for this site to function properly.
Go to headerGo to navigationGo to searchGo to contentsGo to footer
In content section. Select this link to jump to navigation

The economic evaluation of a Participatory Ergonomics programme to prevent low back and neck pain

Issue title: IEA 2012: 18th World congress on Ergonomics - Designing a sustainable future

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Driessen, Maurice; | Bosmans, Judith | Proper, Karin; | Anema, Johannes; | Bongers, Paulien; ; | Van der Beek, Allard;

Affiliations: Body@Work TNO VUmc, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Department of Health Sciences, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands | TNO Quality of Life, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Note: [] Corresponding and presenting author. E-mail: a.vanderbeek@vumc.nl.

Keywords: economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, musculoskeletal pain, participatory ergonomics

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0458-2315

Journal: Work, vol. 41, no. Supplement 1, pp. 2315-2320, 2012

Published: 2012
Get PDF

Abstract

This study was an economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the Stay@Work Participatory Ergonomics programme (PE) compared to a control group (no PE). In total, 37 departments (n=3047 workers) were randomised into either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a meeting, working groups followed the steps of PE, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures aimed to prevent low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP). Working groups had to implement the ergonomic measures within three months in their department. Cost data included those directly related to LBP and NP. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and cost-benefit analyses (CBA) were performed. After 12 months, health care costs and costs of productivity losses were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (the mean total cost difference was $/euro$127; 95% CI $/euro$-164 – $/euro$418). From a societal perspective, the CEA showed that PE was not cost-effective compared to control for LBP and NP prevalence, work performance, and sick leave. The CBA from a company perspective showed a monetary loss of $/euro$78 per worker. The PE programme was neither cost-effective nor cost-beneficial on any of the effect measures.

Show more