ReviewHealth services research1989
Can organizations benefit from worksite health promotion?
Review in Health services research, 1989. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining and measuring the costs of the HIV epidemic to business firms.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A decision-analytic model was developed to project the future effects of selected worksite health promotion activities on employees' likelihood of chronic disease and injury and on employer costs due to illness. The model employed a conservative set of assumptions and a limited five-year time frame. Under these assumptions, hypertension control and seat belt campaigns prevent a substantial amount of illness, injury, and death. Sensitivity analysis indicates that these two programs pay for themselves and under some conditions show a modest savings to the employer. Under some conditions, smoking cessation programs pay for themselves, preventing a modest amount of illness and death. Cholesterol reduction by behavioral means does not pay for itself under these assumptions. These findings imply priorities in prevention for employer and employee alike.
Indexed as
Identifiers
2499556PMC1065559W120887344What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.