Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 29201-3937, USA.
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Aug;43(2):176-82. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.018.
The financial burden and human losses associated with noncommunicable diseases necessitate cost-effective and efficacious interventions.
An economic analysis of the Lifestyle Education for Activity and Nutrition (LEAN) Study; an RCT that examined the efficacy of traditional and technology-based approaches to weight loss.
Economic analyses from an organizational perspective were conducted for four approaches: standard care control (SC); group weight-loss education (GWL); a multisensor armband (SWA); and the armband in combination with group weight-loss education (GWL+SWA). Data were collected in 2008-2009. Weight loss was the primary outcome. Total costs, costs per participant, costs per kilogram lost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated in 2010-2011. All costs are the actual expenses (i.e., staff time and materials) incurred by the LEAN study (except where noted) and reported in 2010 U.S. dollars.
In the sample population of 197 sedentary, overweight, and obese adults (mean [±SD] age=46.9 ± 0.8 years, BMI=33.3 ± 5.2, weight=92.8 ± 18.4 kg), the GWL+SWA was the most expensive intervention in costs/participant ($365/partic) while yielding the greatest weight loss/partic (6.59 kg). The GWL was next in cost/partic ($240), but the SWA was less expensive in cost/partic ($183) and more efficacious (3.55 vs 1.86 kg/partic). The SC did not achieve significant weight loss. The SWA was the most cost effective ($51/partic/kg lost), followed by the GWL+SWA ($55) and GWL alone ($129). The ICER suggests that for each additional kilogram lost, the GWL+SWA cost $60 more than the SWA alone.
The SWA was the most cost-effective intervention ($51/partic/kg lost). The addition of the GWL increased the efficacy of the SWA intervention but increased costs by $60/partic for each additional kilogram lost. The technology-based approaches were more cost effective and efficacious than traditional approaches in promoting weight loss via lifestyle changes in sedentary, overweight, and obese adults.
与非传染性疾病相关的经济负担和人员损失需要采取具有成本效益和有效的干预措施。
对生活方式教育与营养（LEAN）研究进行经济分析；这是一项随机对照试验，检验了传统和基于技术的减肥方法的效果。
从组织角度进行了经济分析，共涉及四种方法：标准护理对照（SC）；团体减肥教育（GWL）；多传感器臂带（SWA）；以及臂带与团体减肥教育相结合（GWL+SWA）。数据于 2008-2009 年收集。体重减轻是主要结果。2010-2011 年计算了总费用、每个参与者的费用、每公斤体重减轻的费用和增量成本效益比（ICER）。所有成本均为 LEAN 研究实际发生的费用（即员工时间和材料）（特殊说明除外），并以 2010 年的美元报告。
在 197 名久坐、超重和肥胖的成年人（平均[±SD]年龄=46.9±0.8 岁，BMI=33.3±5.2，体重=92.8±18.4kg）的样本人群中，GWL+SWA 在成本/参与者方面最为昂贵（365 美元/参与者），而减重/参与者最多（6.59kg）。GWL 紧随其后，成本/参与者为 240 美元，但 SWA 的成本/参与者较低（183 美元），效果更好（3.55 比 1.86kg/参与者）。SC 未实现显著减重。SWA 的成本效益最高（每公斤减重 51 美元/参与者），其次是 GWL+SWA（每公斤减重 55 美元）和 GWL 单独（每公斤减重 129 美元）。ICER 表明，每增加一公斤体重减轻，GWL+SWA 的成本比单独使用 SWA 高出 60 美元。
SWA 是最具成本效益的干预措施（每公斤减重 51 美元/参与者）。GWL 的加入增加了 SWA 干预的效果，但每增加一公斤体重减轻，成本增加 60 美元/参与者。在促进久坐、超重和肥胖成年人通过生活方式改变减轻体重方面，基于技术的方法比传统方法更具成本效益和效果。
