OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a behavioral Internet treatment (BIT) program for weight management is a viable, cost-effective option compared with usual care (UC) in a diverse sample of overweight (average body mass index = 29 kg/m2), healthy adults (mean age = 34 years) serving in the US Air Force. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group parallel randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned into 2 groups: UC (n = 215) and UC plus BIT (n = 227). Baseline and 6-month assessments were included in the analyses. Primary outcome measures (changes in body weight, percent body fat, and waist circumference) and secondary outcome measures (Weight Efficacy Lifestyle [WEL] questionnaire) were included in an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICEA) model. Costs were computed using the perspective of an agency wanting to replicate the intervention. Sensitivity analyses were performed to measure the robustness of models. RESULTS:Overall cost for BIT intervention was $11,178.40, or $49.24 per BIT participant. Total staff-time cost was $14.03 per BIT participant. Intervention cost was $25.92 per kilogram of weight loss and $28.96 per centimeter of waist-circumference loss. The cost was $37.88 for each additional point gained on the WEL subscale, where increasing scores indicate increased confidence in managing social pressures to eat. CONCLUSIONS: The BIT program is a cost-effective choice for weight management. It may cost more initially, but it results in long-term cost savings. Such cost-effective, Internet-based behavioral interventions for weight management could provide a valuable tool for preventive care aimed at improving individual and societal health.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a behavioral Internet treatment (BIT) program for weight management is a viable, cost-effective option compared with usual care (UC) in a diverse sample of overweight (average body mass index = 29 kg/m2), healthy adults (mean age = 34 years) serving in the US Air Force. STUDY DESIGN: Two-group parallel randomized controlled trial. METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned into 2 groups: UC (n = 215) and UC plus BIT (n = 227). Baseline and 6-month assessments were included in the analyses. Primary outcome measures (changes in body weight, percent body fat, and waist circumference) and secondary outcome measures (Weight Efficacy Lifestyle [WEL] questionnaire) were included in an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (ICEA) model. Costs were computed using the perspective of an agency wanting to replicate the intervention. Sensitivity analyses were performed to measure the robustness of models. RESULTS: Overall cost for BIT intervention was $11,178.40, or $49.24 per BIT participant. Total staff-time cost was $14.03 per BIT participant. Intervention cost was $25.92 per kilogram of weight loss and $28.96 per centimeter of waist-circumference loss. The cost was $37.88 for each additional point gained on the WEL subscale, where increasing scores indicate increased confidence in managing social pressures to eat. CONCLUSIONS: The BIT program is a cost-effective choice for weight management. It may cost more initially, but it results in long-term cost savings. Such cost-effective, Internet-based behavioral interventions for weight management could provide a valuable tool for preventive care aimed at improving individual and societal health.
Authors: Tricia M Leahey; Graham Thomas; Joseph L Fava; Leslee L Subak; Michael Schembri; Katie Krupel; Rajiv Kumar; Brad Weinberg; Rena R Wing Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Louise Falzon; Chris N Sciamanna; Kimberlee J Trudeau; Suzanne Brodney; Joseph E Schwartz; Karina W Davidson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-08-15
Authors: Scott P Stumbo; Bobbi Jo H Yarborough; Micah T Yarborough; Shannon L Janoff; Victor J Stevens; Mark Lewinsohn; Carla A Green Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Russell E Glasgow; Anna Y Sukhanova; Gary G Bennett; Erica T Warner; Mary L Greaney; Sandy Askew; Julie Goldman; Karen M Emmons; Graham A Colditz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: Matthijs Blankers; Udo Nabitz; Filip Smit; Maarten W J Koeter; Gerard M Schippers Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 5.428