Dossier for executive management and finance
The business case: what the evidence supports, what is disputed, and what we do not promise you
The economic benefit of workplace health promotion is less well supported than the market claims. Anyone who traces the widely quoted return figures ends up at a 2008 literature review that cites a 2003 source summarising US studies from 2000 to 2006.
This page puts the counter-evidence on the table first, then builds the narrower case that stands up to scrutiny. We will not give you an ROI. We show you what the evidence supports, what is disputed, and where the money in Switzerland really lies.
As at September 2026. Next review: Q1 2027, when the Job Stress Index 2026 is published.
- 1.8ROI in the methodologically best studiescompared with 2.7 on average across all studies; iga.Report 40, 2019
- 83%of previous estimates are ruled out by the best RCTJones, Molitor and Reif, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2019
- CHF 33.7 billionin productivity losses due to presenteeism in Switzerlandcompared with CHF 18.6 billion due to absenteeism; FOPH, 2025, data 2022
At a glance
- The return range quoted across the market comes from a citation of a citation and rests on US studies from 2000 to 2006.
- The three best-designed studies of recent years found no economic effect.
- The industry's own flagship report reports an ROI of 1.8 in randomised controlled trials, with more than half showing no savings at all.
- In Switzerland, presenteeism costs 1.8 times as much as absenteeism. Half of the problem does not appear in your absence statistics.
- The only genuine Swiss economic evaluation calculates around five years to break-even and counted participants' working time as a cost.
- The evidence supports something other than cost savings: preventive care at the workplace increases take-up.
The figure you find everywhere
'ROI 1:2.5 to 1:4.8.' You will find this range on dozens of German-language provider pages. We do not use it. Here is where it comes from.
The trail leads to iga-Report 13 from 2008. It states verbatim: 'The studies assume a cost-benefit ratio (return on investment, ROI) of 1:2.3 to 1:5.9 for illness costs. Savings on absence are given as between 1:2.5 or 1:4.85 and 1:10.1 (cf. Kreis and Bödeker 2003).'
Four things stand out:
- It is not a finding of iga-Report 13. The report cites Kreis and Bödeker from 2003. A citation of a citation.
- The underlying work is US studies from 2000 to 2006, some using even older data. The health system, cost structure and employment law cannot be applied to Switzerland.
- The great majority are not randomised. As shown later, it is precisely this design that produces inflated results.
- The '1:2.5 to 1:4.8' range that circulates in the market is not in either of the two original ranges. It splices together two different measures.
The report contradicts the way its own figures are used in marketing:
'The lack of analyses and of a consistent methodology, together with quality shortcomings in the evaluation of programmes, makes it difficult to determine the overall health and economic benefit.'
'As a result, the evidence base for a monetary benefit of workplace health promotion and prevention in terms of work performance is currently still very limited.'
iga Report 13, 2008
Source: Initiative Gesundheit und Arbeit (iga), Sockoll I, Kramer I, Bödeker W, iga-Report 13: Wirksamkeit und Nutzen betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention, Evidenz 2000 bis 2006 (2008, data 2000 to 2006)
We cite this report solely to show where the figure comes from, not as evidence.
The second source: a best-case analysis
The second source that is often cited is Chapman's 2012 meta-evaluation, with figures such as 'minus 25% absence' and a cost-benefit ratio of 5.56. The analysis sets out its own limitations.
- Each time, the analysis took the group with the most intensive intervention over the longest period. The author himself writes that this approach probably produces a 'best-case scenario'.
- The averages are not weighted by sample size.
- Participants could serve as their own control group. That is exactly the kind of design that self-selection undermines.
- The author is the managing director of a provider of corporate health management training, the author of the analysis and the editor of the series in which it appeared.
Source: Chapman LS, The Art of Health Promotion / American Journal of Health Promotion, Meta-Evaluation of Worksite Health Promotion Economic Return Studies: 2012 Update (2012)The author is also managing director of the Chapman Institute and editor of the publication series in which the analysis appeared.
What the best studies found
Since 2010, several very large, very rigorous studies have appeared. Their findings differ from those of the market literature.
The study examined exactly the model at issue here: annual on-site biometric screening, a health survey and weekly activities. In 37 of 39 outcomes examined, no significant effect was found in the first year, despite a participation rate of over 56%, well above the industry norm.
And the explanation for why the old figures were too high
The study found marked self-selection: even before the programme began, participants had annual health spending US$1,393 lower than non-participants. Anyone who compares participants with non-participants in observational studies is therefore largely measuring who signs up, not what the programme achieves.
Source: Jones D, Molitor D, Reif J, Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(4):1747-1791, What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study (2019)Randomised controlled trial, n = 4,834, employer with over 12,000 employees, participation rate over 56%, preregistered (AEARCTR-0001368) and independently replicated.
Source: Song Z, Baicker K, JAMA 321(15):1491-1501, Effect of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health and Economic Outcomes (2019)Cluster-randomised across 160 sites, 32,974 employees, 18 months. Funded by NIA, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and J-PAL, not by the industry.
In a UK survey of over 46,000 employees from 233 organisations, resilience training, mindfulness programmes, wellbeing apps, stress management, coaching, relaxation courses, sleep programmes and financial advice showed no measurable difference in wellbeing between participants and non-participants. The one exception, with a positive association, was the chance to volunteer.
Source: Fleming WJ, Industrial Relations Journal 55(2):162-182, Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions (2024)Cross-sectional study of over 46,000 employees in 233 organisations. Not randomised: self-selection cannot be ruled out.
Cross-sectional study, not randomised. It cannot be ruled out that people already under strain are the ones who sign up. The author says so himself, and we say so here too.
The best recent systematic review of the subject assessed 141 papers covering 138 interventions. Positive returns were found in 56.5%, negative in 8.7%, neutral in 9.4% and indeterminate in 25.4%. But the sentence that matters most for an honest page is a different one: randomised controlled trials show a lower share of positive results than other designs.
'those results are illustrations, rather than a demonstration of the return of investment of prevention'
Thonon et al., European Journal of Public Health, 2023
Source: Thonon F et al., European Journal of Public Health 33(4):612-618, Return on investment of workplace-based prevention interventions: a systematic review (2023)141 articles, 138 interventions.
The twist worth knowing about
The most frequently cited evidence of an economic benefit is Baicker, Cutler and Song (2010), with US$3.27 lower illness costs and US$2.73 lower absence costs per dollar invested, based largely on non-randomised studies. Nine years later, the same lead author co-wrote the large randomised study that found no effect on either spending or absence. That is not a reproach; it is normal science. But it ends the debate over how reliable the old figure is.
The most honest figure comes from the industry itself
This argument does not depend on literature that is critical of providers. The flagship report of German-speaking corporate health management makes it itself, and it is published by the statutory health and accident insurers, not by providers.
Three sentences from the report that are almost never quoted in the market:
'This shows that the studies rated as high quality have the lowest average ROI, at 1.8. 27 percent of these studies could not demonstrate any savings.'
'Although studies with a randomised controlled design also yield an average ROI of 1.8, more than 50 percent of the studies here show no savings.'
'Despite the predominantly positive results, however, the often low quality of the included studies means that only limited evidence can be claimed.'
iga.Report 40, 2019
For a Swiss business, the most relevant figure from the same report is another one: the five studies carried out in Europe give an 'indifferent picture' with an average ROI of 1.7. All the headline values are American. The most transferable value in the entire literature is below 2.
Source: Initiative Gesundheit und Arbeit (iga), Barthelmes I, Bödeker W, Sörensen J et al., iga.Report 40: Wirksamkeit und Nutzen arbeitsweltbezogener Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention (2019, study data 2012 to 2018)49 systematic reviews covering over 900 individual studies. iga is supported by the German statutory health and accident insurers, not by providers.
The same report also notes that the literature says too little about participation rates and recruitment routes, and that not one of the reviews evaluated addresses whether measures carry over to other companies. That is a well-documented reason why no provider can promise you a specific result for your organisation.
Why the studies found nothing
The null findings are not a rejection of prevention. They say something about how these programmes were built. Each of the five reasons is a design principle.
- 1. The programmes were general rather than targeted.
- At PepsiCo, over seven years, disease management saved US$136 per member per month and cut hospital admissions by 29%. The general lifestyle programme open to everyone saved nothing. Finding the people who need care and getting them to it produces results. Wellness for everyone does not. Caloyeras et al., Health Affairs, 2014
- 2. Participation was too low, especially where it matters.
- Of the people for whom a need was identified, only 7 to 21% took part in the follow-on programme. RAND, 2013
- 3. The observation period was too short.
- A period of 18 to 24 months is very short for chronic conditions. The only Swiss economic evaluation reaches break-even after around five years (see chapter 5).
- 4. Self-selection inflated the older observational studies.
- See the US$1,393 difference in spending before the programme began, in chapter 2.
- 5. Individual measures cannot fix structural causes.
- When a department is overloaded, the answer is a change in working conditions, not another course. Fleming draws this conclusion explicitly from the survey of 46,000 people.
What we take from this
Targeted rather than blanket. Booked appointments rather than an open-door service. A named next step for every finding. Multi-year rather than one-off. And a willingness to point to working conditions in the evaluation, not to the behaviour of the workforce.
The only Swiss economic evaluation
There is exactly one genuine Swiss economic evaluation of corporate health management. It is almost never cited in the market, probably because its result is unspectacular.
What stands out about SWiNG is the cost side. Of the total cost of CHF 3.6 million, half is direct programme cost and half is lost productivity from participants' working time. Hardly any ROI study in the international literature counts participants' working time, and that omission is the most common methodological criticism of the field.
On the benefit side, the authors could put a franc value only on lower absences and higher work performance. Lower staff turnover, lower health costs and employees' quality of life could not be calculated because the data quality was too poor. The authors therefore state themselves that the benefit is more likely to be underestimated.
Source: Health Promotion Switzerland and Swiss Insurance Association; Evaluation ISPM Universität Zürich, ETH Zürich, WIG ZHAW, Projekt SWiNG, Schlussbericht der Evaluation (2011, data 2008 to 2011)8 businesses, over 5,000 employees. Fieldwork took place more than 15 years ago.
Fieldwork ran from 2008 to 2011, so the data are over 15 years old. We know of no more recent Swiss study of this kind.
The sentence that matters
The only genuine Swiss economic evaluation of corporate health management puts break-even at around five years, and it counts participants' working time as a cost. Anyone who promises you an ROI in the first year is counting differently.
The Swiss figures that really count
The reliable figures for a Swiss business case are not the imported returns. They are the official Swiss statistics, and they tell a different story from the one the market tells.
Between 2012 and 2022, losses from absenteeism rose by 73%, while those from presenteeism rose by only 5%. The biggest burdens came from musculoskeletal and mental illness at 17% each, followed by cardiovascular illness at 7% and neurological illness at 6%.
Source: Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), report by ZHAW WIG, University of Lucerne and BFH, Kosten der übertragbaren und nichtübertragbaren Krankheiten sowie Kosten der Risikofaktoren Übergewicht/Adipositas und Bewegungsmangel in der Schweiz, Schlussbericht Version 2.0 (2025, data 2022)Human capital approach. Because no dedicated statistic exists, presenteeism was estimated solely from the Job Stress survey; 41.2% of presenteeism losses could not be attributed to any cause.Note on the figure 18.6: the final report gives CHF 18.6 billion for absenteeism. Secondary sources, including the ZHAW blog, give 18.0 billion. We use the figure from the report itself.
The report is open about its own limits: with no statistic of its own, presenteeism was estimated solely from the job stress survey, and 41.2% of presenteeism losses could not be attributed to a cause. For absences the figure is 22%.
What this means for your figures
The figure your leadership team sees every month is the absence rate. It captures the smaller half of the problem. The larger half is at work, with reduced capacity. A service that finds untreated complaints among people who still come to work is, by design, a presenteeism measure. What that lets us evidence is an access problem, not a saving.
Source: Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS), Arbeitsvolumenstatistik (AVOL), Absenzen (2025, data 2024)
The Job Stress Index 2022 shows that 28.2% of people in employment are in the critical range, meaning they face more demands than resources, and that 30.3% are emotionally exhausted. The economic potential of CHF 6.5 billion reported there is split 76.9% presenteeism to 23.1% absenteeism, pointing the same way as the federal report.
A word of candour about the series: the figure was CHF 7.6 billion in 2020, against CHF 6.5 billion in 2018. That is not a rising trend, and 2020 was a pandemic year. We therefore do not present the series as a trend.
Source: Health Promotion Switzerland, with the University of Bern and ZHAW, Job-Stress-Index (2022, data 2022)The index was revised methodologically between 2022 and 2025. The results of the 2026 survey are due in the first quarter of 2027.
Why Switzerland calculates differently from Germany
Much of what Swiss HR managers find when they search for German-language guides to corporate health management rests on German social law. For Switzerland, it is simply wrong.
In Germany, statutory health insurance funds are legally required to co-finance workplace health promotion. Advice such as 'have the health insurance fund subsidise it', 'look for ZPP certification' or a pointer to a tax-free allowance all comes from that system.
Switzerland has no equivalent. Health Promotion Switzerland has a statutory mandate under Art. 19 HIA and is financed under Art. 20 HIA by a levy that health insurers collect from every insured person. This levy funds programmes, tools and the Friendly Work Space label. It is not a funding pot from which an employer can pay for a health day.
For procurement, this means two things. First, a Swiss employer bears virtually the full cost itself. Second, and this is the real point of this page, that is precisely why the question of benefit is pressed harder in Switzerland than in Germany, and why an honest answer is worth more here.
A note about ourselves
Several Swiss health insurers offer corporate health management services commercially or as an add-on to an existing insurance relationship. That is legitimate, but it is not the same as a statutory entitlement to funding. Five of the six Swiss absence cost calculators we examined for this page belong to insurers that also pay the daily sickness allowance when employees fall ill. None of these providers can raise that conflict of interest themselves. We can.
We have not been able to settle whether, in Switzerland, a preventive examination paid for by the employer counts as a taxable fringe benefit that must be declared on the salary certificate. We will say nothing on this until we have written advice from a tax adviser. Ask us if the point matters for a decision in your organisation.
Absence cost calculator
Instead of a general claim, a calculation with your own figures. We know of six Swiss absence cost calculators. None of them discloses its formula. This one does.
The formula
Direct absence costs = full-time posts × days of absence per full-time post × (gross annual salary × (1 + employer on-costs)) ÷ working days
250 × 8.5 × (CHF 84,288 × 1.18) ÷ 220 = CHF 960,692
This is the fully loaded cost of sick pay for absences due to illness and accident. No model, no multiplier, no assumption beyond the five figures you can see and change above.
Result: your cost volume
Comparison: the average for the economy as a whole is 8.5 days of absence per full-time post. Your figure of 8.5 days matches it. We deliberately do not calculate any savings potential from this. An industry average is a distribution, not an achievable target.
Scenario 1: who bears which share? Sick pay and daily sickness allowance
Within the waiting period, the employer bears the full cost of sick pay; after that, the daily sickness allowance insurance pays the agreed level of benefit. Only your own case database can tell you how your days of absence divide between the two: many short cases fall entirely within the waiting period, while a few long cases dominate the days. That is why the share is an input, not a default. The premium itself is not included here.
Scenario: of which borne by the employer CHF 192,138 per year. Formula: waiting-period days × daily cost + remaining days × daily cost × (1 − benefit level).
Scenario 2: indirect costs, if you set a multiplier
Replacement staff, overtime premiums, management time, error and quality costs, follow-on absences caused by overload. In the Swiss market, mark-ups of 100, 150 and 250% of direct costs are in circulation, always described as a 'rule of thumb' and never derived. We therefore set no default value. What you enter here is your assumption, not ours, and we always call the result a scenario, not a cost.
Scenario: indirect costs CHF 0, scenario total CHF 960,692 per year.
Why your daily value does not look like the figures in the market
Your calculation above comes to CHF 452 per day of absence. For the same quantity, values of roughly CHF 300 to over CHF 1,000 circulate in the Swiss market. The difference is a matter of calculation convention, not insight: the low value is pure salary, and the high value is the same salary multiplied by a mark-up for indirect costs that is never disclosed. Anyone who places the two figures side by side without naming the multiplier is comparing nothing.
What this calculator does not do
This calculator shows the scale of your costs, not your potential savings. How much of this workplace health measures can influence cannot be predicted across the board for any single company. To understand your cost situation in more depth, commission an analysis.
Why this calculator is built differently
- The formula is on the page, with your figures inserted, including the working-day basis and every multiplier.
- The industry selection genuinely changes the result. We list only industries for which the Federal Statistical Office has published a value.
- The result is a range, not a single, overconfident figure.
- Every default value shows its source and year right at the field.
- There is no email gate and nothing is transmitted. The calculator runs in your browser.
- It does not produce a savings potential. It shows a cost volume. That is the difference between a calculation and a sales argument.
What the evidence actually supports
An honest page cannot be wholly negative. First, what we can claim, each with its source. Below that, what does not work on the same body of evidence.
Workplace screening increases the number of people who actually attend an examination. In a systematic review of 21 studies on breast, cervical and bowel cancer, a substantial proportion of the interventions raised knowledge and uptake by over 30%. The authors conclude that such interventions can effectively increase uptake.
This is the central finding our model rests on. It does not mean that mortality falls as a result. That would be a different and unsupported claim.
Source: Mon HM, Robb KA, Demou E, BMC Cancer, Effectiveness of workplace cancer screening interventions: a systematic review (2024)21 studies out of 13,426 screened. The authors themselves point to probable publication bias and the restriction to English-language studies.
| Claim | Evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Workplace screening increases uptake of early detection. | Well evidenced | Mon, Robb and Demou, BMC Cancer, 2024 |
| Programmes increase the share of employees who have a GP at all. | Well evidenced | Reif et al., JAMA Internal Medicine, 2020 |
| Targeted care for people with an existing condition saves costs; general lifestyle programmes do not. | Well evidenced | Caloyeras et al., Health Affairs, 2014 |
| Exercise programmes can reduce absence due to musculoskeletal complaints, with a stronger effect at higher intensity. | Well evidenced | iga.Report 40, 2019 |
| Cognitive behavioural approaches, manager training, destigmatisation and anti-bullying measures show positive effects. | Well evidenced | iga.Report 40, 2019 |
| Mindfulness-based programmes: the research is mostly positive, but one large field study found no measurable effect. | Disputed | iga.Report 40, 2019 versus Fleming, 2024 |
| Classroom-style teaching that only imparts knowledge, conventional back schools for healthy people and simple exercises at the workplace. | Not evidenced | iga.Report 40, 2019 |
| A general, undifferentiated health check reduces mortality. | Not evidenced | Cochrane, Krogsbøll et al., 2019 |
Where we advise against a service
For completeness, we name the weaker points in our own portfolio. On routine screening of adults without symptoms, the position is as follows:
- Thyroid ultrasound: the US Preventive Services Task Force gives it a grade D recommendation and advises against screening adults without symptoms, because the harm outweighs the benefit. The examination is worthwhile where there are symptoms or a specific reason, not as cancer screening for everyone. USPSTF, 2017
- Melanoma screening by visual examination: the same body gives it grade I, because the evidence is not sufficient to weigh benefit against harm. The examination makes sense as a risk assessment and dermatological triage for people at elevated risk; as population-wide screening, no mortality benefit has been shown. European and Swiss professional societies are in part more favourable than the US body. USPSTF, 2023
- The general all-round check: a Cochrane review with 251,891 participants found that general health checks in adults have little or no effect on all-cause or cancer mortality. That is why we sell risk-stratified, guideline-based modules rather than an all-round check.
Bowel cancer screening is the best-evidenced item in the portfolio: it is recommended from age 50, with a test every two years or a colonoscopy every ten, and since 1 July 2025 compulsory basic health insurance has reimbursed it up to age 74. Krebsliga Schweiz. This position is in line with the Swiss smarter medicine initiative, which warns against overdiagnosis through unselected check-ups.
The business case we stand behind
What is left once the return claim is struck out? Five arguments, none of which depends on a cost saving.
- 1. Access and uptake
- Switzerland has no organised national screening programme for adults. Access is fragmented and participation is low. A workplace service removes three barriers at once. This is the only core claim in our model that has a good evidence base.
- 2. Results for the people with a finding
- Measurable and reportable in aggregate: the share with an abnormal finding, the share with a newly identified risk factor, the share linked to a GP, the share that had acted on the recommendation after three months. These are real results, and nobody has to invent a franc figure to show them.
- 3. Employer attractiveness and retention
- A legitimate argument in a tight labour market, measurable through eNPS, exit interviews and application numbers. It comes with an uncomfortable finding: the Illinois study suggests that part of the benefit measured in older studies was a composition effect, that is, the attraction and retention of healthier employees. We mention it for the sake of completeness.
- 4. Duty of care and health protection
- A voluntary health programme replaces neither the obligations under the Employment Act nor the duty to call in occupational safety specialists. It sits alongside them and contributes to the duty of care. We keep a clear line between what is legally required and what is voluntary.
- 5. Data protection as risk avoidance
- An architecture in which the employer cannot receive individual results at all is not a nice-to-have. Without it, the project fails, and in Switzerland it is mandatory law, not company policy.
How we measure, and what we do not claim
We always distinguish between metrics that can be attributed to us and metrics that cannot. Process metrics such as slot utilisation, participation rate and reach within the target group are fully attributable. Participant-level outcome metrics are attributable but can only be reported in aggregate. We are happy to report organisation-level metrics such as the absence rate and staff turnover, but:
We report tier 3 metrics, but we do not claim that we caused them. A single company without a control group cannot show that, and anyone who claims otherwise is massaging the numbers.
The full metrics model, with all three levels, the reporting rhythm and the minimum group size, is in the implementation dossier.
Frequently asked questions
No. The most widely cited industry average is 2.7. It is drawn from 47 individual values ranging from minus 3.3 to 15.6, and falls to 1.8 in the methodologically strongest studies. In randomised controlled trials, more than half of the studies show no savings at all. The authors of the report themselves speak of 'limited evidence'.
Anyone who promises you a return on this basis either does not know the literature or is keeping quiet about it. What we promise instead is to tell you which metrics we measure and which we will not claim as caused by us.
Because it is the cost saving that has thin evidence, not the benefit. It is well evidenced that a workplace service increases the number of people who actually attend a preventive examination. It is also evidenced that such programmes raise the share of employees who have a GP at all.
There are also reasons that need no study: employer attractiveness in a tight labour market, the duty of care under Art. 328 CO, and a data protection architecture that stands up to scrutiny.
Not necessarily wrong, but usually impossible to verify. Ask for the formula, the number of working days in the denominator, the multiplier for indirect costs and the source of every assumption.
When we researched the market for this page, none of the six Swiss absence cost calculators we found disclosed its formula, and five of them belong to insurers who also pay the daily sickness allowance when someone falls ill. Our calculator above shows the formula and deliberately does not work out a saving for you.
Yes, and that is exactly the point. A workplace service does not replace primary care and is not meant to. It removes three barriers to access at once: finding an appointment, making the time for it and knowing what to ask about.
Every finding is handed over to regular care, with a named next step. That is the part that makes a difference, and many services on the market lack it.
The calculator on this page does that, with your own figures and an open formula, with no email address needed and nothing sent to us. It shows your cost volume, not your savings potential. How much of that workplace measures can influence cannot be credibly predicted for an individual company.
Because a finance department that does its own checking will find the weaknesses anyway. It is better to put the counter-evidence on the table yourself than to be confronted with it in the second meeting.
The largest German-language employer report on the subject puts it this way: 'The return on investment (ROI) of corporate health management efforts cannot always be determined cleanly, as there are many parallel influences that can distort the cost-benefit calculation (e.g. economic crisis, flu outbreak).'
Sources
Every figure on this page can be traced to one of these sources. Anything we could not check against the primary document for this page is left out.
- Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), report by ZHAW WIG, University of Lucerne and BFH Kosten der übertragbaren und nichtübertragbaren Krankheiten sowie Kosten der Risikofaktoren Übergewicht/Adipositas und Bewegungsmangel in der Schweiz, Schlussbericht Version 2.0 2025, data 2022Human capital approach. For lack of a statistic of its own, presenteeism was estimated solely from the job stress survey; 41.2% of presenteeism losses could not be attributed to a cause.https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/de/sd-web/8GeOHCgqQkN0/kosten-ncd-in-der-schweiz.pdf
- Federal Statistical Office (FSO) Labour Volume Statistics (AVOL), Absences 2025, data 2024https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/arbeit-erwerb/erwerbstaetigkeit-arbeitszeit/arbeitszeit/absenzen.html
- Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS) Schweizerische Lohnstrukturerhebung (LSE) 2024 2025, data 2024Median salary CHF 7,024 gross per month, full-time equivalent, whole economy.https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/aktuell/neue-veroeffentlichungen.assetdetail.36195847.html
- Health Promotion Switzerland, with the University of Bern and ZHAW Job-Stress-Index 2022, data 2022The index was revised methodologically between 2022 and 2025. The results of the 2026 survey are due in the first quarter of 2027.https://friendlyworkspace.ch/de/themen/arbeitsbedingter-stress/studie-job-stress-index
- Health Promotion Switzerland and Swiss Insurance Association; Evaluation ISPM Universität Zürich, ETH Zürich, WIG ZHAW Projekt SWiNG, Schlussbericht der Evaluation 2011, data 2008 to 20118 businesses, over 5,000 employees. Fieldwork took place more than 15 years ago.https://friendlyworkspace.ch/system/files/documents/2022-11/2011-07_Projekt_SWiNG_Schlussbericht_-_Zusammenfassung.pdf
- Health Promotion Switzerland Wie verbreitet ist betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement in der Schweiz? Monitoring-Ergebnisse 2024, Faktenblatt 116 2025, data 2024Survey of 1,159 businesses with 10 or more employees out of 4,446 contacted, response rate 26%, fieldwork May to July 2024, conducted by YouGov Switzerland for the FHNW.https://gesundheitsfoerderung.ch/sites/default/files/2025-04/Faktenblatt_116_GFCH_2025-04_-_BGM_in_Schweizer_Betrieben.pdf
- Initiative Gesundheit und Arbeit (iga), Barthelmes I, Bödeker W, Sörensen J et al. iga.Report 40: Wirksamkeit und Nutzen arbeitsweltbezogener Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention 2019, study data 2012 to 201849 systematic reviews covering over 900 individual studies. iga is supported by the German statutory health and accident insurers, not by providers.https://www.iga-info.de/veroeffentlichungen/igareporte/igareport-40
- Initiative Gesundheit und Arbeit (iga), Sockoll I, Kramer I, Bödeker W iga-Report 13: Wirksamkeit und Nutzen betrieblicher Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention, Evidenz 2000 bis 2006 2008, data 2000 to 2006https://www.von-herzen-gesund.de/wp-content/uploads/iga-Report_13_Wirksamkeit_Gesundheitsfoerderung_Praevention_Betrieb.pdf
- Jones D, Molitor D, Reif J, Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(4):1747-1791 What Do Workplace Wellness Programs Do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study 2019Randomised controlled trial, n = 4,834, employer with over 12,000 employees, participation rate over 56%, preregistered (AEARCTR-0001368) and independently replicated.https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/4/1747/5550759
- Song Z, Baicker K, JAMA 321(15):1491-1501 Effect of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health and Economic Outcomes 2019Cluster-randomised across 160 sites, 32,974 employees, 18 months. Funded by NIA, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and J-PAL, not by the industry.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2730614
- Reif J et al., JAMA Internal Medicine Effects of a Workplace Wellness Program on Employee Health, 24-month follow-up 2020https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32453346/
- Fleming WJ, Industrial Relations Journal 55(2):162-182 Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions 2024Cross-sectional study of over 46,000 employees in 233 organisations. Not randomised: self-selection cannot be ruled out.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/irj.12418
- Thonon F et al., European Journal of Public Health 33(4):612-618 Return on investment of workplace-based prevention interventions: a systematic review 2023141 articles, 138 interventions.https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/4/612/7192365
- Baicker K, Cutler D, Song Z, Health Affairs 29(2):304-311 Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings 2010Meta-analysis of predominantly non-randomised studies.https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0626
- Caloyeras JP, Liu H, Exum E, Broderick M, Mattke S, Health Affairs 33(1):124-131 Managing Manifest Diseases, But Not Health Risks, Saved PepsiCo Money Over Seven Years 2014https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0625
- Mattke S et al., RAND Corporation, RR-254-DOL Workplace Wellness Programs Study: Final Report 2013https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR254.html
- Chapman LS, The Art of Health Promotion / American Journal of Health Promotion Meta-Evaluation of Worksite Health Promotion Economic Return Studies: 2012 Update 2012The author is also managing director of the Chapman Institute and editor of the publication series in which the analysis appeared.https://chapmaninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/O-07_Meta-Evaluation_2012_Update.pdf
- Mon HM, Robb KA, Demou E, BMC Cancer Effectiveness of workplace cancer screening interventions: a systematic review 202421 studies out of 13,426 screened. The authors themselves point to probable publication bias and the restriction to English-language studies.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11321184/
- Krogsbøll LT et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD009009.pub3 General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease 201915 studies, 251,891 participants.https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub3/full
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Thyroid Cancer: Screening, recommendation grade D 2017https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/thyroid-cancer-screening
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Skin Cancer: Screening, recommendation grade I 2023https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/skin-cancer-screening
- Techniker Krankenkasse, IFBG und Haufe #whatsnext 2025, Erfolgsfaktoren im betrieblichen Gesundheitsmanagement 2025n = 1,529 organisations, survey January to February 2025. German data, in euros and in the context of German social law.https://www.tk.de/resource/blob/2197646/74c9dbc71dac772c8cd5d7bb71d2729b/whatsnext-2025-data.pdf
- Health Promotion Switzerland Auftrag, Ziele und Strategie der Stiftung (Art. 19 und 20 KVG) 2026https://gesundheitsfoerderung.ch/stiftung/auftrag-ziele-strategie
- Krebsliga Schweiz Darmkrebs: Früherkennung, und Ausdehnung der OKP-Vergütung bis Alter 74 ab 1. Juli 2025 2025https://www.krebsliga.ch/ueber-krebs/frueherkennung/darmkrebs/
- smarter medicine, Choosing Wisely Switzerland Über die Top-5-Listen 2026https://www.smartermedicine.ch/de/top-5-listen/ueber-top-5-listen
German surveys are labelled as such. Their direction carries over to Switzerland, but their absolute values do not: social law, cost structure and salary levels differ.