A Cost-effectiveness and Return-on-Investment Analysis of a Worksite Vitality Intervention Among Older Hospital Workers Results of a Randomized, Controlled Trial

Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness and return-on-investment analysis comparing a worksite vitality intervention with usual care. Methods: A total of 730 older hospital workers were randomized to the intervention or control group. The 6-month intervention consisted of yoga and aerobic exercising, coaching, and fruit. At baseline, and 6 and 12 months, general vitality, work-related vitality, and need for recovery were determined. Cost data were collected on a 3-monthly basis. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective and the return-on-investment analysis from the employer's perspective using bootstrapping techniques. Results: No significant differences in costs and effects were observed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of general vitality (range, 0 to 100), work-related vitality (range, 0 to 6), and need for recovery (range, 0 to 100) were, respectively, (sic)280, (sic)7506, and (sic)258 per point improvement. Per euro invested, (sic)2.21 was lost. Conclusions: The intervention was neither cost-effective nor cost-saving.