Economic evaluations of interventions against influenza at workplaces: systematic review. (21st December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ofori, S K; Hung, Y W; Schwind, J S; Diallo, K; Babatunde, D; Nwaobi, S O; Hua, X; Sullivan, K L; Cowling, B J; Chowell, G; Fung, I C H
• Is Part Of: Occupational medicine. Volume 72:Part 2(2022)
• Page Start: 70
• Page End: 80
• Publication Date: 2021-12-21
• Subjects: Cost–benefit analysis -- occupational health -- sick leave -- systematic review -- vaccines -- workplace; Medicine, Industrial -- Periodicals; Employee health promotion -- Periodicals; 616.9803
• DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqab163
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-7480

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The burden of influenza is mostly felt by employees and employers because of increased absenteeism rates, loss of productivity and associated direct costs. Even though interventions against influenza among working adults are effective, patronage and compliance to these measures especially vaccination are low compared to other risk groups. Aims: This study was aimed to assess evidence of economic evaluations of interventions against influenza virus infection among workers or in the workplace setting. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline for systematic reviews was followed. Three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and EconLit, were searched using keywords to identify relevant articles from inception till 25 October 2020. Original peer-reviewed papers that conducted economic evaluations of influenza interventions using cost–benefit, cost–effectiveness or cost–utility analysis methods focused on working-age adults or work settings were eligible for inclusion. Two independent teams of co-authors extracted and synthesized data from identified studies. Results: Twenty-four articles were included: 21 were cost–benefit analyses and 3 examined cost–effectiveness analyses. Two papers also presented additional cost–utility analysis. Most of the studies were pharmaceutical interventions ( n = 23) primarily focused on vaccination programs while one study was a non-pharmaceutical intervention examining the benefit of paid sick leave. All but two studies reported that interventions against influenza virus infection at the workplace were cost-saving and cost-effective regardless of the analytic approach. Conclusions: Further cost–effectiveness research in non-pharmaceutical interventions against influenza in workplace settings is warranted. There is a need to develop standardized methods for reporting economic evaluation methods to ensure comparability and applicability of future research findings.