Open AccessEconomic impact of corporate wellness programs in Europe: A literature review
Author(s) -
MartínezLemos R. Iván
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.14-0217-ra
Subject(s) - randomized controlled trial , inclusion (mineral) , perspective (graphical) , economic impact analysis , economic evaluation , gold standard (test) , systematic review , critical appraisal , psychology , medicine , medline , political science , alternative medicine , economics , social psychology , computer science , surgery , pathology , artificial intelligence , law , microeconomics
Economic impact of corporate wellness programs in Europe: A literature review: R. Iván M artínez ‐L emos . Special Learning Department, University of Vigo, SpainObjective The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the economic impact of corporate wellness programs (CWPs) in Europe from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to 2013. Methods A review was undertaken by searching for RCTs with key words in the following databases: PubMed, SPORT‐Discus, and Business Source Premier. Only RCTs that evaluated the economic impact of CWPs, and included analyses performed in Europe with results converted into monetary values, were eligible for inclusion. An approach to economic analyses from both an employer's perspective and a societal perspective was also undertaken. Results Eleven RCTs were identified, and review of these studies determined that the economic impact of the majority of CWPs analyzed was mostly negative. We discuss a possible explanation for these discrepancies with regard to prior reviews in this area. Despite the fact that the RCT is the “gold standard” for investigating without bias, several limitations to the methodology may have influenced the results of the studies in this review and suggested the use of caution in the interpretation of the results. Conclusions The findings of this review could be a “wake up call” for companies regarding the high probability of bias from non‐RCT studies, the majority of which report a positive economic impact of these programs, and the risk of taking inappropriate decisions based on the results of such studies.