Faculty of Health & Life Sciences/Fuse UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Room H012, Coach Lane Campus East, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE7 7XA, UK.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2013 Dec 4;11(1):30. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-11-30.
Development of new peer or lay health-related lifestyle advisor (HRLA) roles is one response to the need to enhance public engagement in, and improve cost-effectiveness of, health improvement interventions. This article synthesises evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HRLA interventions aimed at adults in developed countries, derived from the first systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, equity and acceptability of different types of HRLA role.
The best available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HRLA interventions was obtained using systematic searches of 20 electronic databases and key journals, as well as searches of the grey literature and the internet. Interventions were classified according to the primary health behaviour targeted and intervention costs were estimated where necessary. Lifetime health gains were estimated (in quality-adjusted life years, where possible), based on evidence of effectiveness of HRLAs in combination with published estimates of the lifetime health gains resulting from lifestyle changes, and assumptions over relapse. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are reported.
Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of HRLAs was identified from 24 trials included in the systematic review. The interventions were grouped into eight areas. We found little evidence of effectiveness of HRLAs for promotion of exercise/improved diets. Where HRLAs were effective cost-effectiveness varied considerably: Incremental Cost effectiveness Ratios were estimated at £6,000 for smoking cessation; £14,000 for a telephone based type 2 diabetes management; and £250,000 or greater for promotion of mammography attendance and for HIV prevention amongst drug users. We lacked sufficient evidence to estimate ICERs for breastfeeding promotion and mental health promotion, or to assess the impact of HRLAs on health inequalities.
Overall, there is limited evidence suggesting that HRLAs are cost-effective in terms of changing health-related knowledge, behaviours or health outcomes. The evidence that does exist indicates that HRLAs are only cost-effective when they target behaviours likely to have a large impact on overall health-related quality of life. Further development of HRLA interventions needs to target specific population health needs where potential exists for significant improvement, and include rigorous evaluation to ensure that HRLAs provide sufficient value for money.
开发新的同行或基层健康相关生活方式顾问(HRLA)角色是应对增强公众参与和提高健康改善干预措施成本效益的需求的一种回应。本文综合了来自对不同类型 HRLA 角色的有效性、成本效益、公平性和可接受性进行的首次系统评价的证据,这些证据涉及针对发达国家成年人的 HRLA 干预措施的成本效益。
使用对 20 个电子数据库和主要期刊以及灰色文献和互联网的系统搜索,以及对灰色文献和互联网的搜索,获得了 HRLA 干预措施的最佳成本效益证据。根据 HRLA 组合的有效性证据以及关于生活方式改变带来的终生健康收益的已发表估计值和复发假设,对终生健康收益进行了估计(尽可能采用质量调整生命年)。报告了增量成本效益比。
从系统评价中纳入的 24 项试验中发现了 HRLA 成本效益的证据。这些干预措施被分为八个领域。我们发现 HRLA 对促进锻炼/改善饮食的效果证据有限。在 HRLA 有效的情况下,成本效益差异很大:戒烟的增量成本效益比估计为 6000 英镑;基于电话的 2 型糖尿病管理为 14000 英镑;促进乳房 X 光检查和预防药物使用者中的 HIV 方面的增量成本效益比为 250000 英镑或更高。我们缺乏足够的证据来估计母乳喂养促进和心理健康促进的 ICERs,也无法评估 HRLA 对健康不平等的影响。
总体而言,有有限的证据表明 HRLA 在改变与健康相关的知识、行为或健康结果方面具有成本效益。现有的证据表明,只有当 HRLA 针对可能对整体健康相关生活质量产生重大影响的行为时,HRLA 才具有成本效益。HRLA 干预措施的进一步开发需要针对特定的人群健康需求,这些需求有可能得到显著改善,并包括严格的评估,以确保 HRLA 物有所值。