bims-cieche Biomed News
on Cost-of-illness and economic evaluation in occupational health & safety
Issue of 2025–12–21
two papers selected by
Jonas Stefaan Steel, IDEWE



  1. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2025 Dec 17. pii: 4265. [Epub ahead of print]
       OBJECTIVE: Health-related productivity losses impose a significant burden on health systems and economies. Occupational health interventions (OHI) are increasingly promoted as preventive strategies to reduce work-related illness and enhance productivity. However, their effectiveness often remains unclear, creating a lack of guidance to those deciding on their implementation. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of OHI in reducing sickness absenteeism and generating economic returns, focusing on mental health, physical health, and workplace atmosphere interventions (eg, work climate enhancement, leadership training).
    METHODS: A systematic literature search following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline was conducted throughout December 2024. Risk of bias was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. A random-effects meta-analysis synthesized OHI effects on sick days and return on investment (ROI).
    RESULTS: Of 2624 identified studies, 68 across eight industries met eligibility criteria. From these, 23 were included in the meta-analysis: 11 reporting on sick days, and 12 on ROI. OHI were associated with a non-significant reduction in absenteeism [-0.18 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.80-2.43; P=0.890] and a tendency of positive ROI (1.92; 95% CI -0.34-4.17; P=0.096), albeit with statistical uncertainty.
    CONCLUSION: We only found effect of OHI on ROI, however, absence effects on sick days do not necessarily imply a lack of effectiveness. We hypothesize that ROI benefits reflect improvements in presenteeism, although not directly measured. Overall, this review guides OHI selection and implementation, urges standardized evaluation, and prioritizes research on presenteeism measurement, non-OECD settings, and qualitative success factors.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4265
  2. Public Health. 2025 Dec 17. pii: S0033-3506(25)00541-4. [Epub ahead of print]251 106095
       OBJECTIVES: Understanding economic benefits associated with improved mental well-being in the general population is important for informing population-level strategies. We aimed to estimate the economic impact associated with changes in mental well-being in the Dutch adult population.
    STUDY DESIGN: This study was based on a longitudinal cohort (the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2) METHODS: 5303 adults aged 18-64 years. Were included. Three measurements, each separated by a time interval of three years, were used to evaluate how a change in well-being predicts a change in costs. Well-being was measured using the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. Societal costs encompassed three cost categories: 1) healthcare costs; 2) productivity losses; and 3) patient and family costs. Main analysis was based on a model where a change in costs Y(t2-t1) was regressed on a synchronically occurring change in well-being X(t2-t1). Additionally, this model was compared with a diachronic model where a subsequent change in costs was regressed on a preceding change in well-being, i.e. Y(t3-t2) on X(t2-t1). RESULTS: Each %-point increase in mental well-being reduced societal costs by -€50.74 (95 %CI: €78.72; -€22.76) per person, which was statistically significant (SE = 14.27, t = -3.56, p < 0.001). The majority of these savings (89 %) were attributable to increased productivity. In the diachronic model, no significant difference between wellbeing and subsequent costs was found.
    CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that improvements in mental well-being are potentially associated with simultaneously occurring cost reductions, primarily through increased productivity. Hence, there may be potential for mental well-being interventions to reduce societal costs and enhance productivity at a population level.
    Keywords:  Costs; Population health; Prevention; Wellbeing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2025.106095