Browsing by Author "Salmela, Jatta"

Several unhealthy lifestyle factors are associated with increased sickness absence (SA) and their cost. Diet and physical activity are lifestyle factors that can be altered and thus, they may include potential to effect on employer’s cost of SA. This study aimed to estimate the associations of changes in diet and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) with employer’s direct cost of subsequent short-term (< 10 working days) SA spells. This study is a part of the Helsinki Health Study which is a longitudinal cohort of 40–60-year-old employees of the City of Helsinki in Finland (n = 8960, response rate 67 %). The participants received a phase 1 questionnaire during 2000–02 and a phase 2 questionnaire in 2007. Data from the phase 1 to the phase 2 were used to examine changes in diet and LTPA. Dietary habits were inquired by using a short food frequency questionnaire. Consumption of fruits (F) and vegetables (V) was used as an indicator of healthiness of participants’ diet. Participants’ F&V consumption was classified into three categories both in the phase 1 and 2: those who consumed neither F nor V daily, those who consumed either F or V daily and those who consumed both of them daily. In the question about LTPA, the participants estimated the intensity and the amount of their weekly leisure-time exercise, and based on these, the average weekly MET-hours were calculated. Participants were classified into three categories both in the phase 1 and 2: inactive (< 14 MET-hours/week), moderately active (≥ 14 MET-hours including LTPA with moderate intensity) and active (≥ 14 MET-hours/week including LTPA with vigorous intensity). Data of short-term SA and salaries were received from the employers’ registers between 2008 and 2012. A two-part model was used to analyze the associations between changes in diet and LTPA with the cost of SA. Employees who improved their F&V consumption from non-daily to daily and persevered physically active got 620 € (95 % CI 1194 €, -47 €) lower cost for the employer than those remaining non-daily F&V consumers and physically inactive through the 5-year follow-up, which means 21 % decrease in cost attributable to F&V consumption and LTPA. When examining changes in diet solely, improving or maintaining a greater F&V consumption tended to get lower cost, whereas the highest cost were among those who decreased their F&V consumption from daily to non-daily. No statistically significant results were found, however. Instead, those who persevered physically active (-546 €, 95 % CI -955 €, -137 €) or improved from moderately active to active (-542 €, 95 % CI -1005 €, -78 €) got 19% less cost for the employer than those remaining inactive through the follow-up. Employees who were inactive either in the phase 1 or 2 or continuously inactive got the highest cost for the employer. Improving employees’ diet and LTPA may reduce employer’s direct cost of short-term SA. Though diet had individually no significant associations with cost, improvements in diet may contribute the beneficial associations of LTPA with employer’s cost. To estimate the total cost savings that improvements in diet and LTPA may produce for the employer, all other direct and indirect cost attributable diet and LTPA, such as presenteeism and medical care cost, should also be evaluated.