Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 367–392 | Cite as

Practice and potential of economic evaluation of workplace-based interventions for occupational health and safety

  • Emile Tompa
  • Roman Dolinschi
  • Claire de Oliveira
Original Paper


Background: We review economic analyses in studies of workplace-based occupational health and safety interventions in order to report on evidence of their financial merits and assess the quality of application of economic evaluation methodologies. The focus of the review is interventions applicable to an office setting. Materials and Methods: We draw on several systematic reviews to identify studies that consider both the costs and consequences of an intervention, or simply the consequences in monetary terms. Results: In total, we identified 23 studies which we included in our final synthesis. More than half of these studies considered only the consequences in monetary terms, rather than both the costs and consequences associated with the intervention. Conclusions: In reviewing the studies, we identified a number of methodological shortcomings which we discuss in detail. A key message from our review is that there is a need for economic expertise in the multidisciplinary research teams evaluating workplace-based occupational health and safety interventions.


Economic evaluation OHS interventions Cost-benefit analysis Cost-effectiveness analysis Office interventions Workers’ compensation costs 


  1. 1.
    Amick BC III, Robertson MM, DeRango K, Bazzani L, Moore A, Rooney T, Harrist R. Effect of office ergonomics intervention on reducing musculoskeletal symptoms. Spine 2003;28:2706–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnetz BB, Sjogren B, Rydehn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: a prospective controlled intervention study. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:499–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baxter K, Harrison D. A simple cost benefit analysis for an ergonomics “train-the-trainer” program. In Ergonomics for the New Millennium. San Diego, California, USA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2000, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernacki EJ, Guidera JA, Schaefer JA, Tsai S. A facilitated early return to work program at a large urban medical center. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42:1172–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradley W. Management and Prevention of on the Job Injuries. AAOHN J 1996;44:402–05.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewer S, Van Eerd D, Amick BC III. Systematic review of computer-related office interventions to improve musculoskeletal and visual health. In progress 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler RJ, Johnson WG, Baldwin ML. Managing work disability: why first return to work is not a measure of success. Ind Labour Relat Rev 1995;48:452–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Claxton K, Sculpher M, McCabe C, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NIC technological assessment: not an optional extra. Health Econ 2005;14:339–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis PM, Badii M, Yassi A. Preventing disability from occupational musculoskeletal injuries in an urban, acute and tertiary care hospital: results from a prevention and early active return-to-work safely program. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46:1253–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Jong AM, Vink P. Participatory ergonomics applied in installation work. Appl Ergon 2002;33:439–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeRango K, Amick BC III, Robertson MM, Rooney T, Moore A, Bazzani L. The productivity consequences of two ergonomic interventions. Working paper #222, 1–39. Toronto, Canada, Institute for Work & Health 2003.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeRango K, Franzini L. Economic evaluations of workplace health interventions: theory and literature review. In Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Quick JC, Tetrick LE editors, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2003, pp. 417–30.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005;43.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evanoff BA, Bohr PC, Wolf LD. Effects of a participatory ergonomics team among hospital orderlies. Am J Ind Med 1999;35:358–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franche R-L, Cullen K, Frank J, Clarke J, MacEachen E, Sinclair S, Irvin E, Reardon R, Raj A, Cole DC, Pennick V. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature. Toronto, Canada, Institute for Work & Health; 2004, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Francis J, Dressel DL. Workspace influence on worker performance and satisfaction: an experimental field study. In Promoting health and productivity in the computerized office: Models of successful ergonomic interventions. Sauter SL, Dainoff M, Smith M editors, New York: Taylor and Francis; 1990, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goggins R. Table prepared for the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, Fryback DG, Hadorn DC, Kamlet MS et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC editors, New York: Oxford University Press; 1996, pp. 82–134.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman RC. An aggressive return-to-work program in surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a comparison of costs. Plastic and Reconstructive Surg 1992;89:715–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goossens M, Evers S, Vlaeyen J, Rutten-an Molken M, van der Linden S. Principles of economic evaluation for interventions of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Eur J Pain 1999;3:343–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haddix AC, Teutsch SM, Corso PS. Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Halpern CA, Dawson KP. Design and implementation of a participatory ergonomics program for machine sewing tasks. Int J Ind Ergon 1997;20:429–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Pohjolainen T, Hurri H, Mutanen P, Rissanen P, Pahkajarvi H, Levon H, Karpoff H. Mini-intervention for subacute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine 2003;28:533–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kemmlert K. Economic impact of ergonomic intervention—four case studies. J Occup Rehabil 1996;6:17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerr M. The importance of psychosocial risk factors in injury. In Injury and the new world of work. Sullivan TJ editor, Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press; 2000, pp. 93–114.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lanoie P, Tavenas S. Costs and benefits of preventing workplace accidents: the case of participatory ergonomics. Safety Sci 1996;24:181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leigh JP, Markowitz SB, Fahs M, Shin C, Ladrigan PJ. Occupational injury and illness in the United States. Arch Int Med 1997;157(July):1537–1568.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewis R, Krawiec M, Confer E, Agopsowicz D, Crandall E. Musculoskeletal disorder worker compensation costs and injuries before and after an office ergonomic program. Int J Ind Ergon 2002;29:95–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li J, Wolf L, Evanoff B. Use of mechanical patient lifts decreased musculoskeletal symptoms and injuries among health care workers. Injury Prev 2004;10:212–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lilienfeld DE, Stolley PD. Foundations of Epidemiology, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press 1994.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loisel P, Lemaire J, Poitras S, Durand MJ, Champagne F, Stock S, Diallo B, Tremblay C. Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of a disability prevention model for back pain management: a six year follow up study. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:807–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore JS, Garg A. The effectiveness of participatory ergonomics in the red meat packing indursty: evaluation of a corporation. Int J Ind Ergon 1998;21:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nerhood H, Rael J. Low tech, low cost approach to office ergonomics. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety VII. Bittner AC Jr., Champney PC edsitors, Taylor and Francis, Ltd.; 1995, pp. 363–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Niven KJM. A review of the application of health economics to health and safety in healthcare. Health Policy 2002;61:291–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norman R, Wells R. Ergonomic interventions for reducing musculoskeletal disorders. In Injury and the New World of Work. Sullivan TJ editor, Vancouver: UBC Press; 2000, pp. 115–39.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reed P. The medical disability advisor: workplace guidelines for disability duration. Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: LRP Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reese S. Helping workers stretch away strain: a semiconductor equipment manufacturer slashes its on-the-job injury rate with a low-tech program and 16 min. a day. Business Health 1998;16:21–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Richardson D. Ergonomics & retention. Caring 2002;21:6–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rivilis I, Van Eerd D, Cullen K, Cole D, Irvin E, Tyson J, Mahood Q. Effectiveness of participatory ergonomic interventions: a systematic review. Submitted to: Ergonomics 2005.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seeley PA, Marklin RW. Business case for implementing two ergonomic interventions at an electric power utility. Appl Ergon 2003;34:429–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shannon HS, Lowe GS. How many injured workers do not file claims for workers’ compensation benefits? Am J Ind Med 2002;42:467–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tadano P. A safety prevention program for VDT operators: one company’s approach. J Hand Ther 1990;3:64–71.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thompson DA. Effect of exercise breaks on musculoskeletal strain among data-entry operators: a case study. In Promoting health and productivity in the computerized office: models of successful ergonomic interventions. Dainoff M editor, Taylor & Francis 1990.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tompa E. Productivity and health: empirical evidence and policy implications. In The Review of Economic Performance and Social Progress: towards a Social Understanding of Productivity. Sharpe A, St-Hillaire F, Banting K editors, Montreal/Ottawa: the Institute for Research on Public Policy and Centre for the Study of Living Standards; 2002, pp. 181–202.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yassi A, Tate R, Cooper JE, Snow C, Vallentyne S, Khokhar JB. Early intervention for back-injured nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital: an evaluation of the effectiveness and cost benefits of a two-year pilot project. Occup Med 1995;45:209–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emile Tompa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Roman Dolinschi
    • 1
  • Claire de Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Work & Health, Population/Workforce Studies ProgramTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Economics, McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations