Golsteijn Rianne Hj, Peels Denise A, Evers Silvia Maa, Bolman Catherine, Mudde Aart N, de Vries Hein, Lechner Lilian
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014 Sep 28;11:122. doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0122-z.
BACKGROUND: The adverse health effects of insufficient physical activity (PA) result in high costs to society. The economic burden of insufficient PA, which increases in our aging population, stresses the urgency for cost-effective interventions to promote PA among older adults. The current study provides insight in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of different versions of a tailored PA intervention (Active Plus) among adults aged over fifty. METHODS: The intervention conditions (i.e. print-delivered basic (PB; N = 439), print-delivered environmental (PE; N = 435), Web-based basic (WB; N = 423), Web-based environmental (WE; N = 432)) and a waiting-list control group were studied in a clustered randomized controlled trial. Intervention costs were registered during the trial. Health care costs, participant costs and productivity losses were identified and compared with the intervention effects on PA (in MET-hours per week) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 12 months after the start of the intervention. Cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated per intervention condition. Non-parametric bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. RESULTS: As a whole (i.e. the four intervention conditions together) the Active Plus intervention was found to be cost-effective. The PB-intervention (ICER = €-55/MET-hour), PE-intervention (ICER = €-94/MET-hour) and the WE-intervention (ICER = €-139/MET-hour) all resulted in higher effects on PA and lower societal costs than the control group. With regard to QALYs, the PB-intervention (ICUR = €38,120/QALY), the PE-intervention (ICUR = €405,892/QALY) and the WE-intervention (ICUR = €-47,293/QALY) were found to be cost-effective when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY. In most cases PE had the highest probability to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The Active Plus intervention was found to be a cost-effective manner to increase PA in a population aged over fifty when compared to no-intervention. The tailored Active Plus intervention delivered through printed material and with additional environmental information (PE) turned out to be the most cost-effective intervention condition as confirmed by the different sensitivity analyses. By increasing PA at relatively low costs, the Active Plus intervention can contribute to a better public health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register: NTR2297.
背景:身体活动不足(PA)对健康产生的不利影响给社会带来了高昂成本。PA不足的经济负担在老龄化人口中不断增加,这凸显了采取具有成本效益的干预措施以促进老年人PA的紧迫性。本研究深入探讨了针对50岁以上成年人的不同版本的个性化PA干预措施(Active Plus)的成本效益和成本效用。 方法:在一项整群随机对照试验中研究了干预条件(即印刷版基础干预(PB;N = 439)、印刷版环境干预(PE;N = 435)、网络版基础干预(WB;N = 423)、网络版环境干预(WE;N = 432))以及一个等待名单对照组。在试验期间记录干预成本。确定医疗保健成本、参与者成本和生产力损失,并与干预开始12个月后对PA(每周代谢当量小时数)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)的干预效果进行比较。计算每个干预条件的成本效益比(ICERs)和成本效用比(ICURs)。采用非参数自助法技术和敏感性分析来考虑不确定性。 结果:总体而言(即四个干预条件合在一起),发现Active Plus干预具有成本效益。PB干预(ICER = -55欧元/代谢当量小时)、PE干预(ICER = -94欧元/代谢当量小时)和WE干预(ICER = -139欧元/代谢当量小时)在PA方面的效果均高于对照组,且社会成本更低。关于QALYs,当考虑20,000欧元/QALY的支付意愿阈值时,PB干预(ICUR = 38,120欧元/QALY)、PE干预(ICUR = 405,892欧元/QALY)和WE干预(ICUR = -47,293欧元/QALY)被发现具有成本效益。在大多数情况下,PE最有可能具有成本效益。 结论:与不干预相比,发现Active Plus干预是以具有成本效益的方式增加50岁以上人群的PA。通过不同的敏感性分析证实,通过印刷材料并附带环境信息(PE)提供的个性化Active Plus干预是最具成本效益的干预条件。通过以相对较低的成本增加PA,Active Plus干预可以促进更好的公共卫生。 试验注册:荷兰试验注册库:NTR2297
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013-9-2
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023-3
Syst Rev. 2020-6-3
Am J Lifestyle Med. 2014-1
Respirology. 2014-2
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013-9-2
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013-6
J Med Internet Res. 2013-3-14
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012-9-11