Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31451925›Full record

ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2020

Implementing interventions to reduce work-related stress among health-care workers: an investment appraisal from the employer's perspective.

Ben F M Wijnen, Joran Lokkerbol, Cecile Boot, Bo M Havermans, Allard J van der Beek, Filip Smit

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Health Promotion for Outpatient Careworkers in Germany.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ben F M WijnenCentre for Economic Evaluation, Trimbos-Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands. bwijnen@trimbos.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7993-1905
Joran LokkerbolCentre for Economic Evaluation, Trimbos-Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cecile BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bo M HavermansDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Filip SmitCentre for Economic Evaluation, Trimbos-Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw reference number: 50-51510-98-302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Stress-Prevention@Work implementation strategy has been demonstrated to be successful in reducing stress in employees. Now, we assess the economic return-on-investment to see if it would make for a favourable business case for employers.

methodsData were collected from 303 health-care workers assigned to either a waitlisted control condition (142 employees in 15 teams) or to Stress-Prevention@Work (161 employees in 15 teams). Main outcome was productivity losses measured using the Trimbos and iMTA Cost questionnaire in Psychiatry. Measurements were taken at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-baseline.

resultsThe per-employee costs of the strategy were €50. Net monetary benefits were the benefits (i.e., improved productivity) minus the costs (i.e., intervention costs) and were the main outcome of this investment appraisal. Per-employee net benefits amounted to €2981 on average, which was an almost 60-fold payout of the initial investment of €50. There was a 96.7% likelihood for the modest investment of €50 to be offset by cost savings within 1 year. Moreover, a net benefit of at least €1000 still has a likelihood of 88.2%.

conclusionsIn general, there was a high likelihood that Stress-Prevention@Work offers an appealing business case from the perspective of employers, but the employer should factor in the additional per-employee costs of the stress-reducing interventions. Still, if these additional costs were as high as €2981, then costs and benefits would break even. This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelAbsenteeismAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupational HealthOccupational StressPresenteeismStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesEmployee perspectiveInterventionInvestment appraisalPreventionWork stress

Identifiers

PMID31451925
PMCPMC6989605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.