OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of a lifestyle intervention for construction workers with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, usual care was compared to a 6-month individual-based lifestyle intervention. At 6 and 12 months, weight, absenteeism, health care use, and lifestyle-related expenses were determined. Missing data were imputed. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a societal perspective. Uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated by bootstrapped cost-effect pairs. A cost-benefit analysis was performed from an employer's perspective, subtracting the incremental costs from the incremental benefits. RESULTS: The ICER was € 145/kg weight loss. The difference between intervention and control group in net employer costs was € 254 (95% CI: -1070 to 1536). CONCLUSION: Implementation of this important and effective intervention depends on the societal and employer's willingness to pay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Groeneveld et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: