Construct validity of SF-6D health state utility values in an employed population.

BACKGROUND: Health utility values permit cost utility analysis in workplace health promotion; however, utility measures of working populations have not been validated. AIM: To investigate construct validity of SF-6D health utility in a public service workforce. METHODS: SF-12v2 Health Survey was administered to 3,408 randomly selected public service employees in Australia in 2010. SF-12 scores were converted to SF-6D health utility values. Associations and correlates of SF-6D with health, socio-demographic and work characteristics [comorbidities, body mass index (BMI), Kessler-10 psychological distress (K10), education, salary, effort-reward imbalance (ERI), absenteeism] were explored. Ceiling effects were analysed. Nationally representative employee SF-6D values from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey (n = 11,234) were compared. All analyses were stratified by sex. RESULTS: Mean (SE) age was 45.7 (0.35) males; 44.5 (0.22) females. Females represented 72 % of the sample. Mean (SE) health utility 0.792 (0.004); 0.771 (0.003) was higher in males. SF-6D demonstrated both a significant inverse association (p < 0.01) and negative correlations (female; male) with K10 (r = -0.63; r = -0.66), comorbidity count (r = -0.40; r = -0.33), ERI (r = -0.37; r = -0.34) and absenteeism (p < 0.005, r = -0.25; r = -0.21). Mean (SE) SF-6D in HILDA was 0.792 (0.002); 0.775 (0.003) males; females. Correlates and associations in all samples were similar. The general employed demonstrated a significant inverse association with age and positive association with salary. SF-6D was independent of BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress, comorbidity, effort-reward imbalance and absenteeism are negatively associated with employee health. SF-6D is a valid measure of perceived health states in working populations.

Development of the Workplace Health Savings Calculator: a practical tool to measure economic impact from reduced absenteeism and staff turnover in workplace health promotion.

BACKGROUND: Workplace health promotion is focussed on improving the health and wellbeing of workers. Although quantifiable effectiveness and economic evidence is variable, workplace health promotion is recognised by both government and business stakeholders as potentially beneficial for worker health and economic advantage. Despite the current debate on whether conclusive positive outcomes exist, governments are investing, and business engagement is necessary for value to be realised. Practical tools are needed to assist decision makers in developing the business case for workplace health promotion programs. Our primary objective was to develop an evidence-based, simple and easy-to-use resource (calculator) for Australian employers interested in workplace health investment figures. RESULTS: Three phases were undertaken to develop the calculator. First, evidence from a literature review located appropriate effectiveness measures. Second, a review of employer-facilitated programs aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of employees was utilised to identify change estimates surrounding these measures, and third, currently available online evaluation tools and models were investigated. We present a simple web-based calculator for use by employers who wish to estimate potential annual savings associated with implementing a successful workplace health promotion program. The calculator uses effectiveness measures (absenteeism and staff turnover rates) and change estimates sourced from 55 case studies to generate the annual savings an employer may potentially gain. Australian wage statistics were used to calculate replacement costs due to staff turnover. The calculator was named the Workplace Health Savings Calculator and adapted and reproduced on the Healthy Workers web portal by the Australian Commonwealth Government Department of Health and Ageing. CONCLUSION: The Workplace Health Savings Calculator is a simple online business tool that aims to engage employers and to assist participation, development and implementation of workplace health promotion programs.

The relationship between return on investment and quality of study methodology in workplace health promotion programs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between return on investment (ROI) and quality of study methodology in workplace health promotion programs. DATA SOURCE: Data were obtained through a systematic literature search of National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Database (HTA), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, EconLit, PubMed, Embase, Wiley, and Scopus. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Included were articles written in English or German reporting cost(s) and benefit(s) and single or multicomponent health promotion programs on working adults. Return-to-work and workplace injury prevention studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Methodological quality was graded using British Medical Journal Economic Evaluation Working Party checklist. Economic outcomes were presented as ROI. DATA SYNTHESIS: ROI was calculated as ROI = (benefits - costs of program)/costs of program. Results were weighted by study size and combined using meta-analysis techniques. Sensitivity analysis was performed using two additional methodological quality checklists. The influences of quality score and important study characteristics on ROI were explored. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies (61 intervention arms) published between 1984 and 2012 included 261,901 participants and 122,242 controls from nine industry types across 12 countries. Methodological quality scores were highly correlated between checklists (r = .84-.93). Methodological quality improved over time. Overall weighted ROI [mean ± standard deviation (confidence interval)] was 1.38 ± 1.97 (1.38-1.39), which indicated a 138% return on investment. When accounting for methodological quality, an inverse relationship to ROI was found. High-quality studies (n = 18) had a smaller mean ROI, 0.26 ± 1.74 (.23-.30), compared to moderate (n = 16) 0.90 ± 1.25 (.90-.91) and low-quality (n = 27) 2.32 ± 2.14 (2.30-2.33) studies. Randomized control trials (RCTs) (n = 12) exhibited negative ROI, -0.22 ± 2.41(-.27 to -.16). Financial returns become increasingly positive across quasi-experimental, nonexperimental, and modeled studies: 1.12 ± 2.16 (1.11-1.14), 1.61 ± 0.91 (1.56-1.65), and 2.05 ± 0.88 (2.04-2.06), respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, mean weighted ROI in workplace health promotion demonstrated a positive ROI. Higher methodological quality studies provided evidence of smaller financial returns. Methodological quality and study design are important determinants.