Radcliff Tiffany A, Côté Murray J, Shankar Meena N, Durning Patricia E, Ross Kathryn M, Janicke David M, Befort Christie A, Curran Laurel S, Perri Michael G
School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2025 Jul 16;20(7):e0326383. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326383. eCollection 2025.
Rural United States (U.S.) residents with obesity have unique challenges maintaining successful weight loss; tailored support resources such as individual behavioral coaching through telehealth are a cost-effective option. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of telephone-based individual coaching sessions for extended care after initial weight loss compared to an education-only control group. Trial data collected during a randomized trial conducted in rural counties in Florida from October 21, 2013, to December 21, 2018 informed the base case parameters. Using a program/participant perspective, cost-effectiveness was assessed for a 5-year time horizon using a discrete Markov model, with sensitivity analysis to test model assumptions. A 3% discount rate was used to value future time periods, and prices were inflated to 2024 values. Primary endpoints were the proportion of participants in each weight loss category, measured as a < 5%, 5-10%, or >10% reduction from baseline weight. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using program costs and participant-reported Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and health care costs. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the end of the trial and 5 years post-trial. Cost-effectiveness used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Results identified that intervention with 18 individual telephone counseling sessions was more expensive than the education/control program to deliver ($555/participant vs. $27/participant) but also more effective (34.2% with at least 10% weight loss vs. 17.0% for control at the end of the intervention), with 6.4% of modeled participants expected to maintain at least 10% in baseline reduction at year 5, compared to 5.4% for controls. Intervention participants were predicted to have modestly lower out-of-pocket prescription and other medical costs compared to participants in the control group, which offset some of the incrementally higher coaching program costs. Predicted ICERs at 5 years ranged from $7,731 to $8,156 per QALY gained through the individual coaching program. Findings contribute to evidence needed to identify cost-effective strategies for long-term weight management and disease prevention for at-risk populations.
美国农村地区肥胖居民在维持成功减肥方面面临独特挑战;量身定制的支持资源,如通过远程医疗提供的个人行为指导,是一种具有成本效益的选择。本研究比较了与仅接受教育的对照组相比,在初始体重减轻后通过电话进行个人指导以提供长期护理的成本效益。2013年10月21日至2018年12月21日在佛罗里达州农村县进行的一项随机试验中收集的试验数据为基础病例参数提供了依据。从项目/参与者的角度出发,使用离散马尔可夫模型在5年时间范围内评估成本效益,并进行敏感性分析以检验模型假设。采用3%的贴现率对未来时间段进行估值,并将价格调整至2024年的价值。主要终点是每个体重减轻类别中的参与者比例,以相对于基线体重减少<5%、5-10%或>10%来衡量。使用项目成本、参与者报告的质量调整生命年(QALY)和医疗保健成本来评估成本效益。计算试验结束时和试验后5年的增量成本效益比(ICER)。成本效益采用150,000美元/QALY的支付意愿阈值。结果表明,进行18次个人电话咨询的干预措施比教育/对照项目的实施成本更高(555美元/参与者对27美元/参与者),但也更有效(干预结束时至少减重10%的比例为34.2%,而对照组为17.0%),在第5年,预计6.4%的模拟参与者将维持至少10%的基线体重减轻,而对照组为5.4%。与对照组参与者相比,预计干预参与者的自付处方和其他医疗成本略低,这抵消了部分指导项目成本的增量增加。通过个人指导项目获得的每QALY在5年时预测的ICER范围为7,731美元至8,156美元。研究结果为确定针对高危人群的长期体重管理和疾病预防的成本效益策略提供了所需证据。