UCD Perinatal Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, National Maternity Hospital Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Biological and Health Sciences, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2020 May;44(5):999-1010. doi: 10.1038/s41366-020-0531-9. Epub 2020 Jan 21.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of a mobile health-supported lifestyle intervention compared with usual care.
We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the publicly-funded health care system. We estimated costs associated with the intervention and health care utilisation from first antenatal care appointment through delivery. We used bootstrap methods to quantify the uncertainty around cost-effectiveness estimates. Health outcomes assessed in this analysis were gestational weight gain (GWG; kg), incidence of excessive GWG, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as cost per QALY gained, cost per kg of GWG avoided, cost per case of excessive GWG averted, and cost per case of LGA averted.
Total mean cost including intervention and health care utilisation was €3745 in the intervention group and €3471 in the control group (mean difference €274, P = 0.08). The ICER was €2914 per QALY gained. Assuming a ceiling ratio of €45,000, the probability that the intervention was cost-effective based on QALYs was 79%. Cost per kg of GWG avoided was €209. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) for kg of GWG avoided reached a confidence level of 95% at €905, indicating that if one is willing to pay a maximum of an additional €905 per kg of GWG avoided, there is a 95% probability that the intervention is cost-effective. Costs per case of excessive GWG averted and case of LGA averted were €2117 and €5911, respectively. The CEAC for case of excessive GWG averted and for case of LGA averted reached a confidence level of 95% at €7090 and €25,737, respectively.
Results suggest that a mobile-health lifestyle intervention could be cost-effective; however, a better understanding of the short- and long-term costs of LGA and excessive GWG is necessary to confirm the results.
评估移动健康支持的生活方式干预与常规护理相比的成本效益。
我们从公共资助的医疗保健系统的角度进行了成本效益分析。我们估算了从第一次产前护理预约到分娩期间与干预和医疗保健利用相关的成本。我们使用自举方法来量化成本效益估计的不确定性。本分析评估的健康结果包括妊娠体重增加(GWG;kg)、过度 GWG 的发生率、质量调整生命年(QALYs)和巨大儿(LGA)的发生率。增量成本效益比(ICER)计算为每获得一个 QALY 的成本、每避免增加 1kgGWG 的成本、每避免过度 GWG 发生的病例的成本以及每避免 LGA 发生的病例的成本。
包括干预和医疗保健利用在内的总平均费用,干预组为 3745 欧元,对照组为 3471 欧元(平均差异 274 欧元,P=0.08)。ICER 为每获得一个 QALY 增加 2914 欧元。假设上限比率为 45000 欧元,根据 QALYs,干预具有成本效益的概率为 79%。每避免增加 1kgGWG 的成本为 209 欧元。避免增加 1kgGWG 的成本效益接受曲线(CEAC)在达到 95%置信水平时为 905 欧元,表明如果愿意每避免增加 1kgGWG 最多支付 905 欧元,那么干预具有成本效益的概率为 95%。每避免过度 GWG 发生和每避免 LGA 发生的成本分别为 2117 欧元和 5911 欧元。避免过度 GWG 发生和避免 LGA 发生的 CEAC 分别在 7090 欧元和 25737 欧元时达到 95%的置信水平。
结果表明,移动健康生活方式干预可能具有成本效益;然而,为了确认结果,需要更好地了解 LGA 和过度 GWG 的短期和长期成本。