bims-cieche 2025-10-19 papers

Issue of 2025–10–19
four papers selected by
Jonas Stefaan Steel, IDEWE

J Occup Environ Med. 2025 Oct 17.

The Impact of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome on Work Productivity and Functional Outcomes in Office Workers: A Comprehensive Cross-Sectional Study.

Ümit Yalçin, Ömer Faruk Bucak, Çiğdem Çinar.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) severity, work productivity, and functional outcomes in office workers.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 194 office workers were classified for CTS severity via clinical and electromyographic criteria. Work productivity was assessed with the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI-GH), and pain and function with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ).
RESULTS: CTS severity showed strong positive correlations with WPAI (r = 0.951), BCTQ (r > 0.84), and VAS (r = 0.770) scores (p < 0.001). Severe CTS was associated with >60% productivity loss, higher absenteeism, and greater functional impairment compared to mild or no CTS.
CONCLUSIONS: CTS in office workers is linked to substantial productivity decline and occupational disruption. Early detection, ergonomic measures, and BMI control may reduce individual disability and socioeconomic burden.

Keywords: Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Carpal tunnel syndrome; WPAI; office workers; work productivity

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000003578

BJPsych Open. 2025 Oct 13. 11(6): e243

The impact of loneliness on healthcare costs and service utilisation and the cost-effectiveness of loneliness interventions: systematic review.

Sharon Eager, Helen Baldwin, David McDaid, Paul McCrone, Phoebe Barnett, Theodora Stefanidou, Prisha Shah, Stephen Jeffreys, Antonio Rojas-García, Ruby Jarvis, Beverley Chipp, Brynmor Lloyd-Evans, Alexandra Pitman, Maria Ana Matias, Nikita Jacob, Sonia Johnson.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is associated with several physical and mental health problems, yet its costs to the healthcare system remain unclear.
AIMS: The current study aimed to review literature on the health and social care impacts of loneliness, and review economic evaluations of loneliness interventions.
METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of studies published from 2008 to April 2025 by searching five bibliographic databases, grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews. Studies estimating health and social care cost/expenditure, and on health resource utilisation, were included to assess the impact of loneliness on the health system. Return on investment, social return on investment and cost-effectiveness evaluations were included to assess the economic impact of loneliness interventions. We conducted quality appraisal and narrative synthesis of results.
RESULTS: We included 53 studies. Eight estimated the healthcare cost/expenditure of loneliness, 33 reported healthcare resource use and 19 were economic evaluations of interventions. Findings relating to the cost/expenditure of loneliness and service use were inconsistent: some studies reported excess costs/expenditure and service use, whereas others found lower costs/expenditure and service use. Economic evaluation studies indicated that loneliness interventions can be cost-effective, but were not consistently cost-saving or effective in reducing loneliness.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings on the impact of loneliness on the healthcare system and economic evaluations of loneliness interventions were varied. Therefore, we cannot derive confident conclusions from this review. To address evidence gaps, future research relating to social care, younger populations, direct healthcare costs of loneliness and randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-ups should be prioritised.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; expenditure; healthcare; loneliness; service use

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10862

Trials. 2025 Oct 16. 26(1): 417

Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment of the web-based MiLES intervention targeted at employers, to enhance successful return to work of employees with cancer: design of a randomized controlled trial.

Judith M Mollet, Michiel A Greidanus, Cécile R L Boot, Christiaan Vis, Johanna M van Dongen, Angela G E M de Boer, Sietske J Tamminga.

BACKGROUND: The MiLES intervention is a digital employer-based tool aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) of employees with cancer through interactive videos, conversation checklists and tips and information. In a previous study, the MiLES intervention proved to be a useful intervention that aligns with employers' daily practice. The hypothesis is that the MiLES intervention will enhance the employers' willingness, ability and self-efficacy in providing RTW support, which in turn will enhance the RTW of employees with cancer. This paper describes the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), aimed at evaluating the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and return on investment of the MiLES intervention. Parallel to the RCT, a process evaluation of the delivery of the MiLES intervention in a real-world setting will be conducted.
METHODS: An RCT with a 12-month follow-up period will be conducted involving 140 employer-employee dyads. The employees are diagnosed with cancer (< 2 years earlier), aged 18-67 years, in paid employment with an employer, and currently fully or partly sick-listed (< 2 years). The employer provides RTW support to the included employee. All dyads will either be allocated to the intervention group, of which the employer will get access to the MiLES intervention, or to the control group in which care as usual will be provided. The primary outcome will be successful RTW (encompassing the employee's perspectives on RTW) at the level of the employee; secondary outcomes will include the following: time to RTW, quality of life and quality of working life, received work-related support, and satisfaction with work-related support. At the level of the employer, the secondary outcomes will include the following: self-efficacy in providing RTW support and satisfaction with the RTW process. All outcomes will be assessed using questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months of follow-up. Both the cost-effectiveness and the return on investment analysis will be conducted from the employers perspective. For the process evaluation, the UK MRC framework will be used.
DISCUSSION: This RCT will study the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and return on investment of the MiLES intervention. This knowledge is needed to formulate recommendations regarding the implementation of the MiLES intervention beyond the research setting.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06672887. Registered on October 25, 2024.

Keywords: Cancer survivors; Employee; Employer; Intervention; Manager; Neoplasm; Randomized controlled trial protocol; Return to work

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-025-09092-2

Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Oct 14.

Trends in the economic burden of mental disorders over twelve years: the Netherlands mental health survey and incidence study.

S J Korteling, M Ten Have, F W Thielen, S van Dorsselaer, M Tuithof, A I Luik, B F M Wijnen.

OBJECTIVE: Mental disorders impose a substantial economic burden, making updated cost estimates essential for informed policymaking. This study provides recent cost-ofillness estimates for mental disorders in the general population and examines trends over a 12-year period.
METHOD: The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS) is a cohort representative for the Dutch population in which common DSM-IV/DSM-5 mental disorders (mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) were diagnosed using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0. In baseline data of NEMESIS-3 (2019-2022, N=6,194, age 47.9±16.4 years, 50.4% women) we estimated healthcare, productivity, travel costs associated with mental disorders through weighted regression models and compared these estimates with baseline data from NEMESIS-2 (2007-2009; N=6,506, age 44.3±12.5 years, 55.2% women), assuming identical unit prices.
RESULTS: Total annual per capita costs of any mental disorder were €5,630. Productivity costs comprised the largest share of total costs (61%-85%). In all conditions, except substance use disorder, both total annual costs and productivity costs were lower in 2019-2022 compared to 2007-2009. Healthcare costs were substantially lower for mood and substance use disorders in 2019- 2022, even though primary healthcare utilization was increased in 2019-2022.
DISCUSSION: Productivity costs are the primary cost driver of mental disorders. While primary care utilization has increased- possibly due to the introduction of general practice mental health professionals- healthcare resource use has decreased over time. This may indicate a shift in service provision toward primary care from specialized mental healthcare, potentially contributing to more cost-effective mental healthcare delivery.

Keywords: Cost of illness; Healthcare costs; Mental disorders; NEMESIS; Productivity losses

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-025-01849-5