OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence regarding the economic impact of worker health promotion programs. METHODS: Peer-reviewed research articles were identified from a database search. Included articles were published between January 2000 and May 2010, described a study conducted in the United States that used an experimental or quasi-experimental study design and analyzed medical, pharmacy (direct), and/or work productivity (indirect) costs. A multidisciplinary review team, following specific criteria, assessed research quality. RESULTS: Of 2030 retrieved articles, 44 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were of sufficient quality to be considered evidentiary. Only three analyzed direct and indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding economic impact is limited and inconsistent. Higher-quality research is needed to demonstrate the value of specific programs.
This report presents a Campbell systematic review on the effectiveness of workplace disability management programs (WPDM programs) promoting return to work (RTW), as implemented and practised by employers. The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of WPDM programs, to examine components or combination of components, which appear more highly related to positive RTW outcomes, and get an understanding of the research area to assess needed research. Twelve databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies published between 1948 to July 2010 on WPDM programs provided by the employer to re-entering employees with injuries or illnesses (occupational or non-occupational). Screening of articles, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were conducted in pairs of reviewers. A total of 16,932 records were identified by the initial search. Of these 599 papers were assessed for relevance. Thirteen studies (two non-randomized studies (NRS) and eleven single group ‘before and after’ studies (B&A), including eleven different WPDM programs, met the inclusion criteria. There were insufficient data on the characteristics of the sample and the effect sizes were uncertain. However, narrative descriptions of the included program characteristics were rich, and provide valuable insights into program scope, components, procedures and human resources involved. There is a lack of evidence to draw unambiguous conclusions on the effectiveness of employer provided WPDM programs promoting RTW. Thus we could not determine if specific program components or specific sets of components are driving effectiveness. The review adds to the exiting knowledge base on WPDM program development, characteristics and evaluation. As an organizational level intervention employer provided WPDM programs are multi-component offering a suite of policies and practices for injured or ill employees. The review identified 15 constituent program components, covering individual, organizational, and system level policies and practices, depicting key human resources involved in workplace program procedures and administration. The majority of WPDM programs were targeted musculoskeletal disorders, during the off-work and pre-return phase of the RTW process, with only little evidence on WPDM programs targeting mental health conditions and post return/stay at work. Future program evaluations ought to broaden their focus beyond the first phases of the RTW process and incorporate sustainable outcomes (e.g. job retention, satisfactory and productive job performance, work role functioning, and maintenance of job function). Given the lack of WPDM programs evaluated in peer-reviewed publications, more attention needs to be given to locate and evaluate efforts from company studies that may still exist outside the peer reviewed published literature. Thus, researchers following this track need to consider if these studies, when located have adequate study designs. While many employers recognize the importance of WPDM and are adopting policies and practices to promote RTW, judging from this review, the existing evidence leaves room for more rigorous methodological studies to develop the present WPDM knowledge base. Prospectively WPDM evaluation research also needs to enlarge its perspective and analytic tools to examine information that is meaningful and cost effective to those who will benefit from it to further advance the field. The review findings might help explicate WPDM programs and its potential impact on RTW outcomes, and provide a more complete understanding of the research in the field of WPDM. This may inspire researchers, employers, and policy makers, who are interested not only in questions regarding the impact of programs, but also their nature, to promote future design and evaluation of DM in organizations.
INTRODUCTION: A systematic review was conducted to review the effectiveness of workplace-based return-to-work (RTW) interventions. METHOD: Seven databases were searched, in English and French, between January 1990 and December 2003 for peer-reviewed studies of RTW interventions provided at the workplace to workers with work disability associated with musculoskeletal or other pain-related conditions. Methodological quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted by pairs of reviewers. RESULTS: Of a total of 4124 papers identified by the search, 10 studies were of sufficient quality to be included in the review. There was strong evidence that work disability duration is significantly reduced by work accommodation offers and contact between healthcare provider and workplace; and moderate evidence that it is reduced by interventions which include early contact with worker by workplace, ergonomic work site visits, and presence of a RTW coordinator. For these five intervention components, there was moderate evidence that they reduce costs associated with work disability duration. Evidence for sustainability of these effects was insufficient or limited. Evidence regarding the impact of supernumerary replacements was insufficient. Evidence levels regarding the impact of the intervention components on quality-of-life was insufficient or mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review provides the evidence base supporting that workplace-based RTW interventions can reduce work disability duration and associated costs, however the evidence regarding their impact on quality-of-life outcomes was much weaker.
To assess the evidence regarding the economic impact of worker health promotion programs.
METHODS:
Peer-reviewed research articles were identified from a database search. Included articles were published between January 2000 and May 2010, described a study conducted in the United States that used an experimental or quasi-experimental study design and analyzed medical, pharmacy (direct), and/or work productivity (indirect) costs. A multidisciplinary review team, following specific criteria, assessed research quality.
RESULTS:
Of 2030 retrieved articles, 44 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were of sufficient quality to be considered evidentiary. Only three analyzed direct and indirect costs.
CONCLUSIONS:
Evidence regarding economic impact is limited and inconsistent. Higher-quality research is needed to demonstrate the value of specific programs.
