This systematic review of the literature on the financial impact of workplace health promotion programs is the most extensive and well-conceived review conducted to date. It illustrates that the return on investment (ROI) from programs differs based on the quality of the methodology used to evaluate it, with 68 different ROIs depending how the published studies are sliced and diced. The review does consider the impact of program quality on ROI, in part because we have no established standards of program quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaxterSSandersonKVennAJBlizzardCLPalmerAJ. The relationship between return on investment and quality of study methodology in workplace health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 2014;28:347–363.
2.
O'DonnellMP. Does workplace health promotion work or not? Are you sure you really want to know the truth?Am J Health Promot. 2013;28:iv–vii.
3.
DrummondMFJeffersonTO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275–283.
4.
EversSGoossensMde VetH. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: consensus on health economic criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240–245.
5.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Methodology checklist—economic evaluations. In: The Guidelines Manual. London, UK: NICE; 2009.
6.
BaickerKCutlerDSongZ. Workplace wellness programs can generate savings. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:304–311.
7.
LernerDRoddayAMCohenJTRogersWH. A systematic review of the evidence concerning the economic impact of employee-focused health promotion and wellness programs. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55:209–222.
