OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the costs and the effects of cardiovascular prevention programs targeted at medical and behavioral risk factors. The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of a cardiovascular prevention program in a general sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention. METHODS: The participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 208) and usual care conditions (n = 106). The intervention consisted of medical interventions and optional behavior-change interventions (e.g., a tailored Web site). Cost data were registered from a healthcare perspective, and questionnaires were used to determine effectiveness (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). A cost-utility analysis and sensitivity analyses using bootstrapping were performed on the intermediate results. RESULTS: When adjusting for baseline utility differences, the incremental cost was 433 euros and the incremental effectiveness was 0.016 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 26,910 euros per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was cost-effective compared with usual care in this sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention. Increased participation would make this intervention highly cost-effective.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the costs and the effects of cardiovascular prevention programs targeted at medical and behavioral risk factors. The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of a cardiovascular prevention program in a general sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention. METHODS: The participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 208) and usual care conditions (n = 106). The intervention consisted of medical interventions and optional behavior-change interventions (e.g., a tailored Web site). Cost data were registered from a healthcare perspective, and questionnaires were used to determine effectiveness (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). A cost-utility analysis and sensitivity analyses using bootstrapping were performed on the intermediate results. RESULTS: When adjusting for baseline utility differences, the incremental cost was 433 euros and the incremental effectiveness was 0.016 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 26,910 euros per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was cost-effective compared with usual care in this sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention. Increased participation would make this intervention highly cost-effective.
Authors: Alec Miners; Jody Harris; Lambert Felix; Elizabeth Murray; Susan Michie; Phil Edwards Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-07-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: J P Greving; H A H Kaasjager; J W P Vernooij; M M C Hovens; J Wierdsma; H M H Grandjean; Y van der Graaf; G A de Wit; F L J Visseren Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Marieke F van Wier; J Caroline Dekkers; Judith E Bosmans; Martijn W Heymans; Ingrid Jm Hendriksen; Nicolaas P Pronk; Willem van Mechelen; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 6.457