AIMS: The intention was to investigate whether preventive health checks and health discussions are cost effective. METHODS: In a randomized trial the authors compared two intervention groups (A and B) and one control group. In 1991 2,000 30- to 49-year-old persons were invited and those who accepted were randomized. Both intervention groups were offered a broad (multiphasic) screening including cardiovascular risk and a personal letter including screening results and advice on healthy living. Individuals in group A could contact their family physician for a normal consultation whereas group B were given fixed appointments for health consultations. The follow-up period was six years. Analysis was carried out on the "intention to treat" principle. Outcome parameters were life years gained, and direct and total health costs (including productivity costs), discounted by 3% annually. Costs were based on register data. Univariate sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Both intervention groups have significantly better life expectancy than the control group (no intervention). Group B and (A) significantly gain 0.14 (0.08) life years more than the control group. There were no differences in average direct (3,255 euro (3,703 euro) versus 4,186 euro) and total costs (10,409 euro (9,399 euro) versus 10,667 euro). The effect in group B is, however, better than in group A with no significant differences in costs. The results are insensitive to a range of assumptions regarding costs, effects, and discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive health screening and consultation in primary care in 30- to 49-year-olds produce significantly better life expectancy without extra direct and total costs over a six-year follow-up period.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The intention was to investigate whether preventive health checks and health discussions are cost effective. METHODS: In a randomized trial the authors compared two intervention groups (A and B) and one control group. In 1991 2,000 30- to 49-year-old persons were invited and those who accepted were randomized. Both intervention groups were offered a broad (multiphasic) screening including cardiovascular risk and a personal letter including screening results and advice on healthy living. Individuals in group A could contact their family physician for a normal consultation whereas group B were given fixed appointments for health consultations. The follow-up period was six years. Analysis was carried out on the "intention to treat" principle. Outcome parameters were life years gained, and direct and total health costs (including productivity costs), discounted by 3% annually. Costs were based on register data. Univariate sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Both intervention groups have significantly better life expectancy than the control group (no intervention). Group B and (A) significantly gain 0.14 (0.08) life years more than the control group. There were no differences in average direct (3,255 euro (3,703 euro) versus 4,186 euro) and total costs (10,409 euro (9,399 euro) versus 10,667 euro). The effect in group B is, however, better than in group A with no significant differences in costs. The results are insensitive to a range of assumptions regarding costs, effects, and discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive health screening and consultation in primary care in 30- to 49-year-olds produce significantly better life expectancy without extra direct and total costs over a six-year follow-up period.
Authors: Signe S Rasmussen; Charlotte Glümer; Annelli Sandbaek; Torsten Lauritzen; Knut Borch-Johnsen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Dea Kehler; Morten Bondo Christensen; Mette Bech Risør; Torsten Lauritzen; Bo Christensen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Ki Young Son; Cheol Min Lee; BeLong Cho; Youl Lee Lym; Seung Won Oh; Wonjoo Chung; Jin-Seok Lee; DuShin Park; Han Suk Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Ans H Tiessen; Karin M Vermeulen; Jan Broer; Andries J Smit; Klaas van der Meer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Evelina Pappa; Nick Kontodimopoulos; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Georgia Pallikarona; Dimitris Niakas; Yannis Tountas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-10-23 Impact factor: 3.390