Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre MUMC+/Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), KEMTA, P. Debyelaan 25, P.O. Box 5800, 6202, AZ, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Department of Social Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Social Medicine, P.O. Box 616, 6200, MD, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Prev Med. 2018 Sep;114:115-122. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.06.015. Epub 2018 Jun 27.
Current guidelines for economic evaluations do not provide specific recommendations for the evaluation of school-based lifestyle interventions. This study examined and discussed the key aspects in the design of economic evaluations on school-based interventions targeting weight-related behaviours among 4-12 year olds. The PubMed and CRD databases (NHS EED) were searched. Grey literature was identified from reference lists and websites of relevant organizations. Full economic evaluations on school-based interventions targeting physical activity, sedentariness, or diet were selected. Key aspects included the objective, audience, intervention, comparator, population, type of analysis, perspective, costs, outcomes, and time horizon. Information was also extracted on measuring and valuing costs and outcomes, linking and extrapolating outcomes, and the maintenance of intervention effects. The 23 included studies reported on cost-effectiveness (CEAs) (N = 12), cost-utility (CUAs) (N = 9), social cost benefit (SCBA) (N = 2), and social return on investment (SROI) (N = 1) analysis. The usual practice comparator was generally not clearly defined. The SROI analysis was the single study that included outcomes in other persons than the child. Healthcare costs (N = 14), productivity costs (N = 4), and costs to the household (N = 3), or education (N = 2) sector were examined. The outcome in trial-based CEAs consisted of a variety of weight-related measures. Seven distinctive models were used to extrapolate health and/or productivity costs. To enhance the usefulness of economic evaluations on school-based lifestyle interventions in allocating public health budgets, transparent reporting on key aspects, broadening the scope of economic evaluations, and standardizing the measurement, valuation, and extrapolation of costs and outcomes should be improved. This study was conducted in Maastricht, the Netherlands.
目前的经济评估指南并未针对基于学校的生活方式干预措施的评估提供具体建议。本研究探讨并讨论了针对 4-12 岁儿童与体重相关行为的基于学校的干预措施的经济评估设计中的关键方面。检索了 PubMed 和 CRD 数据库(NHS EED)。从参考文献列表和相关组织的网站中确定了灰色文献。选择了针对体育活动、久坐行为或饮食的基于学校的干预措施的全经济评估。关键方面包括目标、受众、干预、对照、人群、分析类型、视角、成本、结果和时间范围。还提取了关于衡量和评估成本和结果、联系和推断结果以及干预效果维持的信息。23 项纳入研究报告了成本效益分析(CEA)(N=12)、成本效用分析(CUA)(N=9)、社会成本效益分析(SCBA)(N=2)和社会投资回报率分析(SROI)(N=1)。通常,实践对照物没有被明确定义。SROI 分析是唯一纳入儿童以外其他人的结果的研究。审查了医疗保健成本(N=14)、生产力成本(N=4)、家庭(N=3)或教育(N=2)部门的成本。基于试验的 CEA 的结果包括各种与体重相关的措施。使用了七种不同的模型来推断健康和/或生产力成本。为了提高基于学校的生活方式干预措施的经济评估在分配公共卫生预算方面的有用性,应改进关键方面的透明报告、扩大经济评估的范围以及标准化成本和结果的衡量、估值和推断。本研究在荷兰马斯特里赫特进行。