Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGao, L.
dc.contributor.authorFlego, A.
dc.contributor.authorDunstan, D.
dc.contributor.authorWinkler, E.
dc.contributor.authorHealy, Genevieve
dc.contributor.authorEakin, E.
dc.contributor.authorWillenberg, L.
dc.contributor.authorOwen, N.
dc.contributor.authorLamontagne, A.
dc.contributor.authorLal, A.
dc.contributor.authorWiesner, G.
dc.contributor.authorHadgraft, N.
dc.contributor.authorMoodie, M.
dc.identifier.citationGao, L. and Flego, A. and Dunstan, D. and Winkler, E. and Healy, G. and Eakin, E. and Willenberg, L. et al. 2018. Economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce office workers’ sitting time: The"Stand up Victoria" trial. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 44 (5): pp. 503-511.

© 2018, Nordic Association of Occupational Safety and Health. All rights reserved. Objectives This study aimed to assess the economic credentials of a workplace-delivered intervention to reduce sitting time among desk-based workers. Methods We performed within-trial cost-efficacy analysis and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and recruited 231 desk-based workers, aged 24–65 years, across 14 worksites of one organization. Multicomponent workplace-delivered intervention was compared to usual practice. Main outcome measures including total device-measured workplace sitting time, body mass index (BMI), self-reported health-related quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life-8D, AQoL-8D), and absenteeism measured at 12 months. Results Compared to usual practice, the intervention was associated with greater cost (AU$431/person), benefits in terms of reduced workplace sitting time [-46.8 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% confidence interval (CI):-69.9–-23.7] and increased workplace standing time (42.2 minutes/8-hour workday, 95% CI 23.8–60.6). However, there were no significant benefits for BMI [0.148 kg/m2 (95% CI-1.407–1.703)], QoL-8D [-0.006 (95% CI-0.074–0.063)] and absenteeism [2.12 days (95% CI-2.01–6.26)]. The incremental cost-efficacy ratios (ICER) ranged from AU$9.94 cost/minute reduction in workplace sitting time to AU$13.37/minute reduction in overall sitting time. CEA showed the intervention contributed to higher life year (LY) gains [0.01 (95% CI 0.009–0.011)], higher health-adjusted life year (HALY) gains [0.012 (95% CI 0.0105 – 0.0135)], and higher net costs [AU$344 (95% CI $331–358)], with corresponding ICER of AU$34 443/LY and AU$28 703/HALY if the intervention effects were to be sustained for five-years. CEA results were sensitive to assumptions surrounding intervention-effect decay rate and discount rate. Conclusions The intervention was cost-effective over the lifetime of the cohort when scaled up to the national workforce and provides important evidence for policy-makers and workplaces regarding allocation of resources to reduce workplace sitting.

dc.titleEconomic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to reduce office workers’ sitting time: The"Stand up Victoria" trial
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.titleScandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health
curtin.departmentSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record