Evaluating the Economic Impact of Worksite Physical Activity Interventions in Denmark: An Employer’s Perspective
Author(s)
Maeve McElligott, MSc1, Nicoline Weinreich Reinstrup, MPH2, Renee Hanggard Olesen, MHS3, Brendan Kennelly, Senior Lecturer4, Lars Holger Ehlers, Ph.D., MS2.
1National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland, 2Nordic Institute of Health Economics, Aarhus C, Denmark, 3Nordic Institute of Health Economics, Aarhus, Denmark, 4University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
1National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland, 2Nordic Institute of Health Economics, Aarhus C, Denmark, 3Nordic Institute of Health Economics, Aarhus, Denmark, 4University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
OBJECTIVES: Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for non-communicable diseases and accounts for approximately 7-8% of all deaths in Denmark. Despite public health efforts, inactivity levels continue to rise. As the workplace offers a unique opportunity to reach a large and diverse segment of the population, understanding the potential economic benefits of such interventions is essential for informing employer investment and policy decisions. This study investigates the potential economic benefits of workplace physical activity (PA) interventions for employers in a Danish context.
METHODS: We performed a cost benefit analysis from an employer perspective. Only costs and benefits relevant to the employer were considered, including work productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism). Systematic and grey literature searches were used to inform cost, effect and probability input values. Analyses were performed for two populations: sedentary workers and physical workers. A one-year time-horizon was used. The results are presented as the net cost benefit as well as the return on investment for each company type. Total and per employee net economic benefits are calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the model.
RESULTS: The base case analysis generates a positive net gain for both populations. Results yielded greater returns for employers in physical work environments. Reducing presenteeism had the greatest impact on outcomes, although this was more apparent for sedentary work environments. Reducing absenteeism is not enough to generate a positive net gain. However, results were uncertain due to lack of solid evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing physical activity in the workplace may yield cost savings for the employer through improved employee productivity. These results may encourage employers to adopt such interventions and support efforts to tackle physical inactivity. Further research is required to explore the mechanisms through which such interventions influence employee’s work productivity.
METHODS: We performed a cost benefit analysis from an employer perspective. Only costs and benefits relevant to the employer were considered, including work productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism). Systematic and grey literature searches were used to inform cost, effect and probability input values. Analyses were performed for two populations: sedentary workers and physical workers. A one-year time-horizon was used. The results are presented as the net cost benefit as well as the return on investment for each company type. Total and per employee net economic benefits are calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the model.
RESULTS: The base case analysis generates a positive net gain for both populations. Results yielded greater returns for employers in physical work environments. Reducing presenteeism had the greatest impact on outcomes, although this was more apparent for sedentary work environments. Reducing absenteeism is not enough to generate a positive net gain. However, results were uncertain due to lack of solid evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing physical activity in the workplace may yield cost savings for the employer through improved employee productivity. These results may encourage employers to adopt such interventions and support efforts to tackle physical inactivity. Further research is required to explore the mechanisms through which such interventions influence employee’s work productivity.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
EE442
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Work & Home Productivity - Indirect Costs
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas