What are the economic dimensions of occupational health and how should they be measured? A qualitative study.
Cost-Benefit analysis
Costs and cost analysis
Indirect costs
Intangible benefits
Occupational health
Organizational efficiency
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 07 2022
15 07 2022
Historique:
received:
15
10
2021
accepted:
15
06
2022
entrez:
15
7
2022
pubmed:
16
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Decision makers want to know if there is a financial benefit in investing scarce resources in occupational health management (OHM). Economic evaluations (EEs) of OHM-strategies try to answer this question. However, EEs of OHM-strategies which are strongly marked by quantitative methods may be limited by contextual, qualitative residuals. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) explore important economic dimensions of OHM and (2) to discuss the methods used in current EEs for measuring these dimensions. In this explorative qualitative study, OHM-specialists were recruited via the Swiss organisation for health promotion. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were performed from November 2020 until May 2021. Videotapes were transcribed verbatim and organised by using an open coding strategy. Codes were clustered and synthesised as themes (i.e. the dimensions of EEs of OHM) through a mix of inductive and deductive content analysis. Member check with eight participants was accomplished to validate the results. The interviews had an average duration of 70.5 min and yielded 609 individual codes. These codes were merged into 28 subcategories which were finally categorised into five main themes: Understanding of OHM, costs, benefits, environmental aspects, and evaluation of OHM. Participants stated that the greater part of costs and benefits cannot be quantified or monetised and thus, considered in quantitative EEs. For example, they see a culture of health as key component for a successful OHM-strategy. However, the costs to establish such a culture as well as its benefits are hard to quantify. Participants were highly critical of the use of absenteeism as a linear measure of productivity. Furthermore, they explained that single, rare events, such as a change in leadership, can have significant impact on employee health. However, such external influence factors are difficult to control. Participants perceived costs and benefits of OHM significantly different than how they are represented in current EEs. According to the OHM-specialists, most benefits cannot be quantified and thus, monetised. These intangible benefits as well as critical influencing factors during the process should be assessed qualitatively and considered in EEs when using them as a legitimation basis vis-à-vis decision makers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Decision makers want to know if there is a financial benefit in investing scarce resources in occupational health management (OHM). Economic evaluations (EEs) of OHM-strategies try to answer this question. However, EEs of OHM-strategies which are strongly marked by quantitative methods may be limited by contextual, qualitative residuals. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (1) explore important economic dimensions of OHM and (2) to discuss the methods used in current EEs for measuring these dimensions.
METHODS
In this explorative qualitative study, OHM-specialists were recruited via the Swiss organisation for health promotion. Thirteen semi-structured interviews were performed from November 2020 until May 2021. Videotapes were transcribed verbatim and organised by using an open coding strategy. Codes were clustered and synthesised as themes (i.e. the dimensions of EEs of OHM) through a mix of inductive and deductive content analysis. Member check with eight participants was accomplished to validate the results.
RESULTS
The interviews had an average duration of 70.5 min and yielded 609 individual codes. These codes were merged into 28 subcategories which were finally categorised into five main themes: Understanding of OHM, costs, benefits, environmental aspects, and evaluation of OHM. Participants stated that the greater part of costs and benefits cannot be quantified or monetised and thus, considered in quantitative EEs. For example, they see a culture of health as key component for a successful OHM-strategy. However, the costs to establish such a culture as well as its benefits are hard to quantify. Participants were highly critical of the use of absenteeism as a linear measure of productivity. Furthermore, they explained that single, rare events, such as a change in leadership, can have significant impact on employee health. However, such external influence factors are difficult to control.
CONCLUSIONS
Participants perceived costs and benefits of OHM significantly different than how they are represented in current EEs. According to the OHM-specialists, most benefits cannot be quantified and thus, monetised. These intangible benefits as well as critical influencing factors during the process should be assessed qualitatively and considered in EEs when using them as a legitimation basis vis-à-vis decision makers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35840920
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13659-y
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13659-y
pmc: PMC9284955
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1362Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:303-23
pubmed: 18173386
Anxiety Stress Coping. 2021 Jan;34(1):1-21
pubmed: 32856957
Environ Int. 2021 Sep;154:106595
pubmed: 34011457
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2015 Sep 1;41(5):491-503
pubmed: 26030719
Health Promot Int. 2020 Oct 1;35(5):1168-1179
pubmed: 31711151
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020 Mar 1;46(2):127-142
pubmed: 31820003
J Med Econ. 2010;13(4):662-72
pubmed: 21034378
J Adv Nurs. 2016 Dec;72(12):2954-2965
pubmed: 27221824
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Sep 11;9:112
pubmed: 22967224
Am J Lifestyle Med. 2020 Aug 19;15(2):136-139
pubmed: 33790700
Eur J Public Health. 2019 Jun 1;29(3):540-546
pubmed: 30608540
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012 Sep;38(5):393-408
pubmed: 22270562
Fam Pract. 2008 Apr;25(2):127-31
pubmed: 18304975
J Occup Environ Med. 2013 Mar;55(3):337-46
pubmed: 23439274
Implement Sci. 2019 Jan 11;14(1):2
pubmed: 30635001
BMC Psychiatry. 2013 May 24;13:144
pubmed: 23705753
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Work. 2013 Jan 1;46(3):337-46
pubmed: 23324710
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Mar 1;44(2):171-182
pubmed: 29144535
Obes Rev. 2011 Dec;12(12):1031-49
pubmed: 21883870
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Feb;58(2):114-22
pubmed: 26849254
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Nov 21;15(11):
pubmed: 30469425
Occup Environ Med. 2014 Apr;71(4):295-301
pubmed: 24169931
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010 Jun;36(4):313-8
pubmed: 20431858
BMC Public Health. 2021 May 29;21(1):1010
pubmed: 34051787
J Occup Health. 2020 Jan;62(1):e12101
pubmed: 31773879
Am J Health Promot. 2020 Jan;34(1):112
pubmed: 31847546
Am J Health Promot. 2014 Jul-Aug;28(6):347-63
pubmed: 24977496
J Occup Environ Med. 2017 Apr;59(4):369-376
pubmed: 28157768
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 20;17(1):
pubmed: 31861812
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Sep 1;44(5):458-474
pubmed: 29405241