{"title":"Financial evaluation of interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk: A scoping review","authors":"Jodi Oakman , Samantha Clune , Victoria P Weale","doi":"10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many interventions have aimed to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) which are a costly occupational health problem. However, information on the return on investment of these interventions is limited. This scoping review mapped published evidence of types of financial tools used to assess the return on investment on interventions to reduce WMSDs. The level within the organisation at which the intervention was targeted was also examined.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 2000 to August 2023. Studies with financial evaluations of workplaces intervention/s to reduce WSMDs were included. Coding of financial tools, cost and benefit factors, and the level at which interventions were targeted was undertaken. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. One author extracted data with review by a second author.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were mostly from the US (n = 9), Canada (n = 8) and the Netherlands (n = 6). Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and return on investment approaches were used. Most commonly used cost factors included personnel, equipment, intervention costs, training, and consultant fees, and for economic benefits, productivity, absenteeism, and compensation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Current tools and approaches to economic evaluation do not take into account the likely efficacy of interventions and need to include a broader suite of cost and impact factors, based on known contributory factors such as exposure to psychosocial hazards and lead indicators such as reporting of musculoskeletal pain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21375,"journal":{"name":"Safety Science","volume":"186 ","pages":"Article 106816"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety Science","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753525000414","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Financial evaluation of interventions to reduce musculoskeletal disorder risk: A scoping review
Many interventions have aimed to reduce the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) which are a costly occupational health problem. However, information on the return on investment of these interventions is limited. This scoping review mapped published evidence of types of financial tools used to assess the return on investment on interventions to reduce WMSDs. The level within the organisation at which the intervention was targeted was also examined.
Method
PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and Embase were searched from 2000 to August 2023. Studies with financial evaluations of workplaces intervention/s to reduce WSMDs were included. Coding of financial tools, cost and benefit factors, and the level at which interventions were targeted was undertaken. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. One author extracted data with review by a second author.
Results
Thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were mostly from the US (n = 9), Canada (n = 8) and the Netherlands (n = 6). Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and return on investment approaches were used. Most commonly used cost factors included personnel, equipment, intervention costs, training, and consultant fees, and for economic benefits, productivity, absenteeism, and compensation.
Conclusions
Current tools and approaches to economic evaluation do not take into account the likely efficacy of interventions and need to include a broader suite of cost and impact factors, based on known contributory factors such as exposure to psychosocial hazards and lead indicators such as reporting of musculoskeletal pain.
期刊介绍:
Safety Science is multidisciplinary. Its contributors and its audience range from social scientists to engineers. The journal covers the physics and engineering of safety; its social, policy and organizational aspects; the assessment, management and communication of risks; the effectiveness of control and management techniques for safety; standardization, legislation, inspection, insurance, costing aspects, human behavior and safety and the like. Papers addressing the interfaces between technology, people and organizations are especially welcome.