Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37290417›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of public health2023

Return on investment of workplace-based prevention interventions: a systematic review.

Frédérique Thonon, Anne-Sophie Godon-Rensonnet, Anne Perozziello, Jérôme-Philippe Garsi, William Dab, Philippe Emsalem

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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.

Frédérique ThononLaboratoire Modélisation Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires (MESuRS), Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5384-1001
Anne-Sophie Godon-RensonnetChaire Entreprise et santé, CNAM-Malakoff Humanis, Malakoff, France.
Anne PerozzielloLaboratoire Modélisation Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires (MESuRS), Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), Paris, France.
Jérôme-Philippe GarsiLaboratoire Modélisation Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires (MESuRS), Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), Paris, France.
William DabLaboratoire Modélisation Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires (MESuRS), Conservatoire national des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), Paris, France.
Philippe EmsalemAvyso, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOccupational Safety and Health is an important public health topic. Many employers may regard health promotion or prevention initiatives as an additional cost with few benefits. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the studies conducted on the return on investment (ROI) of preventive health interventions conducted within workplaces, and to describe their designs, topics and calculation methods.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, International Labour Organization and Occupational Safety and Health Administration from 2013 to 2021. We included studies that evaluated prevention interventions in the workplace setting and reported an economic outcome or company-related benefits. We report the findings according to PRISMA reporting guidelines.

resultsWe included 141 articles reporting 138 interventions. Of them, 62 (44.9%) had an experimental design, 29 (21.0%) had a quasi-experimental design, 37 (26.8%) were observational studies and 10 (7.2%) were modelling studies. The interventions' objectives were mostly related to psychosocial risks (N = 42; 30.4%), absenteeism (N = 40; 29.0%), general health (N = 35; 25.4%), specific diseases (N = 31; 22.5%), nutrition (N = 24; 17.4%), sedentarism (N = 21; 15.2%) musculoskeletal disorders (N = 17; 12.3%) and accidents (N = 14; 10.1%). The ROI calculation was positive for 78 interventions (56.5%), negative for 12 (8.7%), neutral for 13 (9.4%) and undetermined for 35 (25.4%).

conclusionThere were many different ROI calculations. Most studies have a positive result but randomized controlled trials have fewer positive results than other designs. It is important to conduct more high-quality studies so that results can inform employers and policy-makers.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthWorkplaceAbsenteeismHealth PromotionHumansNutritional Status

Identifiers

PMID37290417
PMCPMC10393479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.