Table 2.

Change estimates used within the Workplace Health Savings Calculator

Change estimate	Source	Measurement	Assumption
Absenteeism (% decrease)	PWC 2008 [21]a	Average 30–40 % reduction, based on 45/55 case studies	The other 10 studies did not measure the perceived benefits of AB, so average holds for all that do
Staff turnover (replacement cost)	ABS 2008 [26]	75–150 % salary as replacement cost Industry types: engineering, construction, professional services (e.g.: finance, admin), public service, resources (e.g.: agriculture, mining) retail and entertainment	75 % a conservative assumption used in place of conclusive evidence
Staff turnover (% decrease)	PWC 2008 [21]	10–25 % decrease in staff turnover, based on 18/55 case studies. On average this retention range was 20–25 % (from 4 industry categories: finance, utilities, business service, and other)	That 37 case studies did not report on turnover, average based on the 18 studies that did. Average holds as an average for all

^aThese were extracted from the source review [21] of 55 case studies that had varying durations of implementation. It has been shown in the literature that benefits from reduced absenteeism and staff turnover may not be realised before 2 and 5 years after implementation of a successful workplace health promotion program [22]. We wish to reiterate an assumption outlined in this study that the calculated potential annual savings is a long-term benefit