Table 1.
Rubric used to assess rigor and quality of articles that were included in a scoping review, evaluated workplace wellness programs, included ROI measures, and were published before December 20, 2019
| Domain | Checklist items | Article information or score |
|---|---|---|
| Article | ||
| 1.1 | Who is the author? | Open-ended |
| 1.2 | What is the title of the article? | Open-ended |
| 1.3 | What year was the study conducted/published? | Open-ended |
| 1.4 | If published, in which journal was it published? | Open-ended |
| 1.5 | What is evaluated: wellness, disease management, or both? | Open-ended |
| 1.6 | What is the country of study? | Open-ended |
| 1.7 | What is the industry/company? | Open-ended |
| 1.8 | The size of the worksite in which wellness program took place | Small/large |
| 1.8.1 | Number of participants and nonparticipants | Open-ended |
| 1.9 | What academic department or research center conducted the study? | Open-ended |
| 1.10 | What is the funding agency? | Open-ended |
| 1.11 | Do authors have any conflicts of interest? | Yes/no |
| Reporting | ||
| 2.1 | Objectives of the study | 0 or 1 |
| 2.2 | Intervention(s) | 0 or 1 |
| 2.3 | Study sample (scored as average of sub-questions 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, with each sub-question carrying equal weight in contributing to 2.3 score) | 0 to 1 |
| 2.3.1 | Study population | 0 or 1 |
| 2.3.2 | Inclusion/exclusion criteria | 0 or 1 |
| 2.3.3 | Analysis sample | 0 or 1 |
| 2.4 | Type of the economic analysis | 0 or 1 |
| 2.5 | Main outcome(s) | 0 or 1 |
| 2.6 | Intervention costs | 0 or 1 |
| 2.7 | Main finding(s) | 0 or 1 |
| 2.8 | Statistical inference information about the main outcomes (interquartile change, standard errors, standard deviations, confidence interval, P values) | 0 or 1 |
| Internal validity | ||
| 3.1 | Were the main outcome measures clearly described? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.2 | Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups? (0: observational case or cohort without control group; 0.25: observational case with control group; 0.50: observational cohort with control group; 0.75: quasi-experimental; 1.00: randomized) | 0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, or 1.0 |
| 3.3 | Was the method used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? (Scored as average of sub-questions 3.3.1, 3.3.2, with each sub-question carrying equal weight in contributing to 3.3 score) | 0 to 1 |
| 3.3.1 | When not randomized, was any method used to deal with selection bias? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.3.2 | Appropriate method for outcome estimates | 0 or 1 |
| 3.4 | Were the costs measured and valued appropriately? (Scored as average of sub-questions 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, with each sub-question carrying equal weight in contributing to 3.4 score) | 0 to 1 |
| 3.4.1 | Were the intervention cost measures that were used clearly described? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.4.2 | Were monetized outcomes and intervention costs discounted when the timeframe was >1 year? If not discounted, was the reason explained? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.4.3 | Were costs adjusted to real values/inflation? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.5 | Were control and treated groups (or cohorts) recruited from the same population? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.6 | Were control and treated groups (or cohorts) recruited from the same period? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.7 | Did the analyses adjust for different follow-up lengths in cohort or case-control studies? Was the period between intervention and outcome the same for cases and controls? | 0 or 1 |
| 3.8 | Were attrition/losses from follow-ups taken into account? | 0 or 1 |
| External validity | ||
| 4.1 | Did participants in the study represent the entire population from which they were recruited? | 0 or 1 |
| Power | ||
| 5.1 | Did study have sufficient power to detect a clinically important effect? (ie, P values) | 0 or 1 |
| Total quality index score | Sum the values of reporting (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8), internal validity (3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8), external validity (4.1), and power (5.1) items. | 0-18 |