Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Jun;58(6):550-60. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000736.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness and Return-on-Investment of a Mindfulness-Based Worksite Intervention: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Author information

1
Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center (Drs van Dongen, van Berkel, Boot, Proper, Bongers, Beek, van Tulder, van Wier); Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam (Drs van Dongen, Bosmans, van Tulder, van Wier); Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam (Drs van Dongen, van Berkel, Boot, Proper, der Beek); TNO Healthy Living, Leiden (Dr Bongers); and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Drs van Tulder, van Wier).

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a mindfulness-based worksite intervention to usual practice.

METHODS:

Two hundred fifty-seven governmental research institute employees were randomized to the intervention or control group. Intervention group participants received an eight-week mindfulness training, e-coaching, and supporting elements. Outcomes included work engagement, general vitality, job satisfaction, work ability, and costs. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from the societal and employer's perspective, and a return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective.

RESULTS:

After 12 months, a significant but not clinically relevant adverse effect on work engagement was found (-0.19; 95% confidence interval: -0.38 to -0.01). There were no significant differences in job satisfaction, general vitality, work ability, and total costs. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were low (≤0.25) and the intervention did not have a positive financial return to the employer.

CONCLUSION:

The intervention was neither cost-saving nor cost-effective. Poor e-coaching compliance might partly explain this result.

PMID:
27281638
DOI:
10.1097/JOM.0000000000000736
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center