Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Winterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Sports Med. 2020 Apr;50(4):731-750. doi: 10.1007/s40279-019-01233-3.
Physical inactivity is a worldwide pandemic associated with major chronic diseases. Given limited resources, policy makers are in need of physical activity interventions that provide best value for money.
To summarize evidence from RCT-based economic evaluations of primary prevention physical activity interventions in adult populations outside the workplace setting.
Systematic review of health economic evaluations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per MET-hour gained were estimated on the basis of mean differences in intervention costs and standardized effects between intervention and control groups.
Identification of relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and NHSEED).
Cost-effectiveness analyses in which all data (except unit costs) came from one RCT investigating physical activity interventions for primary prevention or health promotion in an adult population in high-income countries.
In twelve eligible studies, 22 interventions were investigated. Interventions were based on advice, goal setting and follow-up support, exercise classes, financial incentives or teaching on behavioral change. The ICER varied widely among the interventions and four interventions showed an ICER below the applied benchmark of US$0.44 to US$0.63 per MET-hour gained. These four interventions were based on individualized advice via print or web.
We found evidence from RCTs indicating cost-effectiveness of some physical activity interventions for primary prevention in adults. However, the majority of interventions assessed would not be cost-effective according to the benchmark applied. Furthermore, our study showed that trial-based evidence on cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions is scarce. Therefore, we recommend that future studies investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of such interventions consider costs as an additional outcome and assess cost-effectiveness.
身体活动不足是一种全球性的大流行病,与许多慢性疾病有关。由于资源有限,政策制定者需要寻找具有最佳性价比的身体活动干预措施。
总结非工作场所成年人群体初级预防身体活动干预措施的基于随机对照试验的经济评估的证据。
对健康经济评估进行系统综述。根据干预组和对照组之间的平均差异,估算增量成本效益比(ICER),以每获得 1 个代谢当量的美元数表示。
通过在电子数据库(MEDLINE、Embase 和 NHSEED)中进行系统检索,确定相关研究。
成本效益分析中所有数据(除单位成本外)均来自一项 RCT,该 RCT 调查了高收入国家成年人群体中用于初级预防或健康促进的身体活动干预措施。
在 12 项符合条件的研究中,有 22 项干预措施被调查。干预措施基于建议、目标设定和随访支持、运动课程、经济激励或行为改变教学。这些干预措施的 ICER 差异很大,其中 4 项干预措施的 ICER 低于应用的 0.44 至 0.63 美元/MET 小时的基准。这四项干预措施基于通过印刷或网络提供的个性化建议。
我们从 RCT 中发现了一些证据,表明某些针对成年人初级预防的身体活动干预措施具有成本效益。然而,根据应用的基准,大多数评估的干预措施都没有成本效益。此外,我们的研究表明,基于试验的身体活动干预措施成本效益证据稀缺。因此,我们建议未来研究在评估此类干预措施的疗效或有效性时,将成本作为附加结果进行考虑并评估成本效益。