Background: Telehealth represents an opportunity for Australia to harness the power of technology to redesign the way health care is delivered. The potential benefits of telehealth include increased accessibility to care, productivity gains for health providers and patients through reduced travel, potential for cost savings, and an opportunity to develop culturally appropriate services that are more sensitive to the needs of special populations. The uptake of telehealth has been hindered at times by clinician reluctance and policies that preclude metropolitan populations from accessing telehealth services. Objective: This study aims to investigate if telehealth reduces health system costs compared with traditional service models and to identify the scenarios in which cost savings can be realized. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to meet the study aims. Initially, literature searches were conducted using broad terms for telehealth and economics to identify economic evaluation literature in telehealth. The investigators then conducted an expert focus group to identify domains where telehealth could reduce health system costs, followed by targeted literature searches for corresponding evidence. Results: The cost analyses reviewed provided evidence that telehealth reduced costs when health system–funded travel was prevented and when telehealth mitigated the need for expensive procedural or specialist follow-up by providing competent care in a more efficient way. The expert focus group identified 4 areas of potential savings from telehealth: productivity gains, reductions in secondary care, alternate funding models, and telementoring. Telehealth demonstrated great potential for productivity gains arising from health system redesign; however, under the Australian activity-based funding, it is unlikely that these gains will result in cost savings. Secondary care use mitigation is an area of promise for telehealth; however, many studies have not demonstrated overall cost savings due to the cost of administering and monitoring telehealth systems. Alternate funding models from telehealth systems have the potential to save the health system money in situations where the consumers pay out of pocket to receive services. Telementoring has had minimal economic evaluation; however, in the long term it is likely to result in inadvertent cost savings through the upskilling of generalist and allied health clinicians. Conclusions: Health services considering implementing telehealth should be motivated by benefits other than cost reduction. The available evidence has indicated that although telehealth provides overwhelmingly positive patient benefits and increases productivity for many services, current evidence suggests that it does not routinely reduce the cost of care delivery for the health system.

Objective: Systematic reviews investigating associations between objective measures of the food environment and dietary behaviours or health outcomes have not established a consistent evidence base. The present paper aims to synthesise qualitative evidence regarding the influence of local food environments on food and purchasing behaviours.Design: A systematic review in the form of a qualitative thematic synthesis.Setting: Urban localities.Subjects: Adults.Results: Four analytic themes were identified from the review including community and consumer nutrition environments, other environmental factors and individual coping strategies for shopping and purchasing decisions. Availability, accessibility and affordability were consistently identified as key determinants of store choice and purchasing behaviours that often result in less healthy food choices within community nutrition environments. Food availability, quality and food store characteristics within consumer nutrition environments also greatly influenced in-store purchases. Individuals used a range of coping strategies in both the community and consumer nutrition environments to make optimal purchasing decisions, often within the context of financial constraints.Conclusions: Findings from the current review add depth and scope to quantitative literature and can guide ongoing theory, interventions and policy development in food environment research. There is a need to investigate contextual influences within food environments as well as individual and household socio-economic characteristics that contribute to the differing use of and views towards local food environments. Greater emphasis on how individual and environmental factors interact in the food environment field will be key to developing stronger understanding of how environments can support and promote healthier food choices.

Objectives Using an employer’s perspective, this study aimed to compare the immediate and longer-term impact of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion information on health-related productivity among a general population of office workers and those with neck pain. Methods A prospective one-year cluster randomized trial was conducted. Participants received an individualized workstation ergonomics intervention, combined with 12 weeks of either workplace neck-specific exercises or health promotion information. Health-related productivity at baseline, post-intervention and 12-months was measured with the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using multilevel mixed models. Results We recruited 763 office workers from 14 organizations and allocated them to 100 clusters. For the general population of office workers, monetized productivity loss at 12 months [AU$1464 (standard deviation [SD] 1318) versus AU$1563 (SD=1039); P=0.023]; and presenteeism at 12 months [2.0 (SD 1.2) versus 2.4 (SD 1.4); P=0.007] was lower in the exercise group compared to those in the health promotion information group. For office workers with neck pain, exercise participants had lower sickness absenteeism at 12 months compared to health promotion information participants [0.7 days (SD 1.0) versus 1.4 days (SD 3.1); P-=0.012], despite a short-term increase in sickness absenteeism post-intervention compared to baseline for the exercise group [1.2 days (SD 2.2) versus 0.6 days (SD 0.9); P<0.001]. Conclusion A workplace intervention combining ergonomics and neck-specific exercise offers possible benefits for sickness presenteeism and health-related productivity loss among a general population of office workers and sickness absenteeism for office workers with neck pain in the longer-term.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of onsite workplace health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) programmes on worker productivity. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42014008750. A search for controlled trials or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effects of onsite workplace HEPA programmes on productivity levels of working adults was performed. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed, and the inter-rater reliability of the quality assessment was analysed. Qualitative synthesis of available evidence is presented. Eight studies were included in the review. There is consistent evidence that onsite workplace HEPA programmes do not reduce levels of sick leave. There appears to be inconsistent evidence of the impact of onsite workplace HEPA programmes on worker productivity. A high-quality study of an onsite combination (aerobic, strengthening and flexibility) HEPA regime and a moderate-quality study of a Tai Chi programme improved worker productivity measured with questionnaires in female laundry workers and older female nurses, respectively. Two high-quality studies and four moderate-quality studies did not show benefit. Studies that showed benefit were mainly those designed with productivity measures as primary outcomes, delivered to occupations involved with higher physical loads, and had higher compliance and programme intensity. The small number of studies and the lack of consistency among studies limited further analyses. There is inconsistent evidence that onsite workplace HEPA programmes improve self-reported worker productivity. Future high-quality RCTs of onsite workplace HEPA programmes should be designed around productivity outcomes, target at-risk groups and investigate interventions of sufficient intensity. High attendance with improved recording is needed to achieve significant results in augmenting worker productivity.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess if the use of Markov modeling (MM) or discrete event simulation (DES) for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) may alter healthcare resource allocation decisions.Methods: A systematic literature search and review of empirical and non-empirical studies comparing MM and DES techniques used in the CEA of healthcare technologies was conducted.Results: Twenty-two pertinent publications were identified. Two publications compared MM and DES models empirically, one presented a conceptual DES and MM, two described a DES consensus guideline, and seventeen drew comparisons between MM and DES through the authors’ experience. The primary advantages described for DES over MM were the ability to model queuing for limited resources, capture individual patient histories, accommodate complexity and uncertainty, represent time flexibly, model competing risks, and accommodate multiple events simultaneously. The disadvantages of DES over MM were the potential for model overspecification, increased data requirements, specialized expensive software, and increased model development, validation, and computational time.Conclusions: Where individual patient history is an important driver of future events an individual patient simulation technique like DES may be preferred over MM. Where supply shortages, subsequent queuing, and diversion of patients through other pathways in the healthcare system are likely to be drivers of cost-effectiveness, DES modeling methods may provide decision makers with more accurate information on which to base resource allocation decisions. Where these are not major features of the cost-effectiveness question, MM remains an efficient, easily validated, parsimonious, and accurate method of determining the cost-effectiveness of new healthcare interventions.