BACKGROUND: Numerous interventions have been shown to increase physical activity but have not been ranked by effectiveness or cost. PURPOSE: This study provides a systematic review of physical activity interventions and calculates their cost-effectiveness ratios. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted (5579 articles) and 91 effective interventions promoting physical activity were identified, with enough information to translate effects into MET-hours gained. Cost-effectiveness ratios were then calculated as cost per MET-hour gained per day per individual reached. Physical activity benefits were compared to U.S. guideline-recommended levels (1.5 MET-hours per day for adults and 3.0 MET-hours per day for children, equivalent to walking 30 and 60 minutes, respectively). RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategies were for point-of-decision prompts (e.g., signs to prompt stair use), with a median cost of $0.07/MET-hour/day/person; these strategies had tiny effects, adding only 0.2% of minimum recommended physical activity levels. School-based physical activity interventions targeting children and adolescents ranked well with a median of $0.42/MET-hour/day/person, generating an average of 16% of recommended physical activity. Although there were few interventions in the categories of "creation or enhanced access to places for physical activity" and "community campaigns," several were cost effective. The least cost-effective categories were the high-intensity "individually adapted behavior change" and "social support" programs, with median cost-effectiveness ratios of $0.84 and $1.16 per MET-hour/day/person. However, they also had the largest effect sizes, adding 35%-43% of recommended physical activity, respectively. Study quality was variable, with many relying on self-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness, effect size, and study quality should all be considered when choosing physical activity interventions. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Numerous interventions have been shown to increase physical activity but have not been ranked by effectiveness or cost. PURPOSE: This study provides a systematic review of physical activity interventions and calculates their cost-effectiveness ratios. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted (5579 articles) and 91 effective interventions promoting physical activity were identified, with enough information to translate effects into MET-hours gained. Cost-effectiveness ratios were then calculated as cost per MET-hour gained per day per individual reached. Physical activity benefits were compared to U.S. guideline-recommended levels (1.5 MET-hours per day for adults and 3.0 MET-hours per day for children, equivalent to walking 30 and 60 minutes, respectively). RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategies were for point-of-decision prompts (e.g., signs to prompt stair use), with a median cost of $0.07/MET-hour/day/person; these strategies had tiny effects, adding only 0.2% of minimum recommended physical activity levels. School-based physical activity interventions targeting children and adolescents ranked well with a median of $0.42/MET-hour/day/person, generating an average of 16% of recommended physical activity. Although there were few interventions in the categories of "creation or enhanced access to places for physical activity" and "community campaigns," several were cost effective. The least cost-effective categories were the high-intensity "individually adapted behavior change" and "social support" programs, with median cost-effectiveness ratios of $0.84 and $1.16 per MET-hour/day/person. However, they also had the largest effect sizes, adding 35%-43% of recommended physical activity, respectively. Study quality was variable, with many relying on self-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness, effect size, and study quality should all be considered when choosing physical activity interventions. Copyright Â
Authors: Larissa Roux; Michael Pratt; Tammy O Tengs; Michelle M Yore; Teri L Yanagawa; Jill Van Den Bos; Candace Rutt; Ross C Brownson; Kenneth E Powell; Gregory Heath; Harold W Kohl; Steven Teutsch; John Cawley; I-Min Lee; Linda West; David M Buchner Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Bing Han; Jennifer Isacoff; Bianca Shulaker; Stephanie Williamson; Terry Marsh; Thomas L McKenzie; Megan Weir; Rajiv Bhatia Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2014-06-20
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Terry Marsh; Stephanie Williamson; Daniela Golinelli; Thomas L McKenzie Journal: Health Place Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Terry Marsh; Stephanie Williamson; Bing Han; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Daniella Golinelli; Thomas L McKenzie Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2014 Jan-Feb
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Atif Adam; Eli Zenkov; Daniel Hertenstein; Marie C Ferguson; Peggy I Wang; Michelle S Wong; Patrick Wedlock; Sindiso Nyathi; Joel Gittelsohn; Saeideh Falah-Fini; Sarah M Bartsch; Lawrence J Cheskin; Shawn T Brown Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Gregory Knell; Henry S Brown; Kelley P Gabriel; Casey P Durand; Kerem Shuval; Deborah Salvo; Harold W Kohl Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2019-04-13
Authors: Deborah A Cohen; Bing Han; Kathryn Pitkin Derose; Stephanie Williamson; Terry Marsh; Thomas L McKenzie Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.043