physioscience 2025; 21(S 03): S22
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1812399
Abstracts
Präsentationen/Presentations
PS 11

Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of NEXpro for neck-related symptoms in Swiss office workers

Autoren

  • A M Aegerter

    1   ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Winterthur, Switzerland
    2   Universität Luzern, Universitäres Forschungszentrum Gesundheit und Gesellschaft, Luzern, Switzerland
    3   Universität Bern, Institut für Psychologie, Bern, Switzerland

  • B Brunner

    4   ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Winterthur Institute of Health Economics, Winterthur, Switzerland

  • V Johnston

    5   University of Southern Queensland, School of Health and Medical Sciences, Ipswich, Australia
    6   The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Brisbane, Australia

  • T Volken

    1   ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Winterthur, Switzerland

  • M Deforth

    1   ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Winterthur, Switzerland
    7   Universität Zürich, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, Department of Biostatistics, Zürich, Switzerland

  • G Sjøgaard

    8   University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark

  • A Elfering

    3   Universität Bern, Institut für Psychologie, Bern, Switzerland

  • M Melloh

    1   ZHAW Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Departement Gesundheit, Winterthur, Switzerland
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
 

Background Neck pain is a significant public health issue, particularly among office workers, with an annual prevalence ranging from 42% to 68%. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility and cost-benefit of a multi-component intervention targeting neck pain in the general population of office workers in Switzerland. The 12-week multi-component intervention consisted of neck exercises, health promotion information workshops, and workplace ergonomics sessions.

Methods The study was designed as a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial and assessed using an employer’s perspective. The main analysis focused on the immediate post-intervention period. Long-term effects were examined in a subsample at the 4-, 8-, and 12-month follow-ups. The intervention effects on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using generalized linear mixed-effects models, controlling for confounding factors. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were presented, along with calculations of the break-even point and the return on investment. Various sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results A total of 120 office workers participated in the trial, with 100 completing the intervention period and 94 completing the entire study. The main analysis included 392 observations. The intervention had a significant positive effect on QALYs and a nonsignificant effect on costs. The ICER was estimated at –25,325 per QALY gain, and the probability of the intervention being cost saving was estimated at 88%. The break-even point was reached one week after the end of the intervention.

Conclusion The multi-component intervention is likely to reduce company costs and simultaneously improve the quality of life of employees. However, the implementation of such interventions critically depends on evidence of their cost-effectiveness. As there is still a large research gap in this area, future studies are needed.



Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. Oktober 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany