Using a Return-On-Investment Estimation Model to Evaluate Outcomes From an Obesity Management Worksite Health Promotion Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Certain modifiable risk factors lead to higher health care costs and reduced worker productivity. A predictive return-on-investment (ROI) model was applied to an obesity management intervention to demonstrate the use of econometric modeling in establishing financial justification for worksite health promotion. METHODS: Self-reported risk factors (n = 890) were analyzed using chi2 and t test methods. Changes in risk factors, demographics, and financial measures comprised the model inputs that determined medical and productivity savings. RESULTS: Over 1 year, 7 of 10 health risks decreased. Of total projected savings ($311,755), 59% were attributed to reduced health care expenditures ($184,582) and 41% resulted from productivity improvements ($127,173), a $1.17 to $1.00 ROI. CONCLUSIONS: Using an ROI model to project program savings is a practical way to provide financial justification for investment in worksite health promotion when risk reduction data are available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".