SynthesisPublic health reviews2026
Effectiveness and economic impact of interventions targeting healthcare personnel: a systematic review of return on investment.
Synthesis in Public health reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate and critically interpret economic evidence on workplace interventions targeting healthcare personnel, distinguishing return on investment from related economic evaluation approaches and grouping interventions by underlying mechanisms. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies published from 2006 to 2024. Eligible empirical studies reported return on investment, benefit-cost ratios, net savings, cost-effectiveness metrics, societal returns, or comparable monetized outcomes for workplace interventions involving healthcare workers. Methodological quality was assessed using CHEERS and ECOBIAS. Results: Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Most reported positive or potentially favorable economic returns, particularly for preventive health measures, workplace mental health and disability-management programs, and educational or human-capital initiatives. Findings were highly context-dependent. Some interventions produced modest, neutral, or unfavorable returns, while the highest estimates often came from model-based analyses or broad societal extrapolations. Comparability was limited by differences in perspective, time horizon, monetization assumptions, health-system structure, labor costs, and implementation. Conclusion: Evidence supports workplace interventions as part of health workforce strategies, but return on investment should not be used as a stand-alone decision criterion. Future evaluations require standardized methods, transparent assumptions, and explicit perspectives and time horizons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.