↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of a complex workplace dietary intervention: an economic evaluation of the Food Choice at Work study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness of a complex workplace dietary intervention: an economic evaluation of the Food Choice at Work study
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Fitzgerald, Aileen Murphy, Ann Kirby, Fiona Geaney, Ivan J Perry

Abstract

To evaluate the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of complex workplace dietary interventions, involving nutrition education and system-level dietary modification, from the perspective of healthcare providers and employers. Single-study economic evaluation of a cluster-controlled trial (Food Choice at Work (FCW) study) with 1-year follow-up. Four multinational manufacturing workplaces in Cork, Ireland. 517 randomly selected employees (18-65 years) from four workplaces. Cost data were obtained from the FCW study. Nutrition education included individual nutrition consultations, nutrition information (traffic light menu labelling, posters, leaflets and emails) and presentations. System-level dietary modification included menu modification (restriction of fat, sugar and salt), increase in fibre, fruit discounts, strategic positioning of healthier alternatives and portion size control. The combined intervention included nutrition education and system-level dietary modification. No intervention was implemented in the control. The primary outcome was an improvement in health-related quality of life, measured using the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels questionnaire. The secondary outcome measure was reduction in absenteeism, which is measured in monetary amounts. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo simulation) assessed parameter uncertainty. The system-level intervention dominated the education and combined interventions. When compared with the control, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (€101.37/quality-adjusted life-year) is less than the nationally accepted ceiling ratio, so the system-level intervention can be considered cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicates there is some decision uncertainty surrounding this, arising from uncertainty surrounding the differences in effectiveness. These results are reiterated when the secondary outcome measure is considered in a cost-benefit analysis, whereby the system-level intervention yields the highest net benefit (€56.56 per employee). System-level dietary modification alone offers the most value per improving employee health-related quality of life and generating net benefit for employers by reducing absenteeism. While system-level dietary modification strategies are potentially sustainable obesity prevention interventions, future research should include long-term outcomes to determine if improvements in outcomes persist. ISRCTN35108237; Post-results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 34 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 39 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#995,904
of 19,250,773 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,996
of 18,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,235
of 289,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#101
of 656 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,250,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 656 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.