BACKGROUND: The health and economic burden of physical inactivity is well documented. A wide range of primary care and community-based interventions are available to increase physical activity. It is important to identify which components of these interventions provide the best value for money. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in primary care and the community. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies based on randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase adult physical activity that were based in primary health care or the community, completed between 2002 and 2009. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Results and study quality were assessed by two researchers, using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness ratios for moving one person from inactive to active, and cost-utility ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) were compared between interventions. RESULTS: Thirteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eight studies were of good or excellent quality. Interventions, study populations, and study designs were heterogeneous, making comparisons difficult. The cost to move one person to the 'active' category at 12 months was estimated for four interventions ranging from €331 to €3673. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies, and varied from €348 to €86,877 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Most interventions to increase physical activity were cost-effective, especially where direct supervision or instruction was not required. Walking, exercise groups, or brief exercise advice on prescription delivered in person, or by phone or mail appeared to be more cost-effective than supervised gym-based exercise classes or instructor-led walking programmes. Many physical activity interventions had similar cost-utility estimates to funded pharmaceutical interventions and should be considered for funding at a similar level.
BACKGROUND: The health and economic burden of physical inactivity is well documented. A wide range of primary care and community-based interventions are available to increase physical activity. It is important to identify which components of these interventions provide the best value for money. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in primary care and the community. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies based on randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase adult physical activity that were based in primary health care or the community, completed between 2002 and 2009. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Results and study quality were assessed by two researchers, using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness ratios for moving one person from inactive to active, and cost-utility ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) were compared between interventions. RESULTS: Thirteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eight studies were of good or excellent quality. Interventions, study populations, and study designs were heterogeneous, making comparisons difficult. The cost to move one person to the 'active' category at 12 months was estimated for four interventions ranging from €331 to €3673. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies, and varied from €348 to €86,877 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Most interventions to increase physical activity were cost-effective, especially where direct supervision or instruction was not required. Walking, exercise groups, or brief exercise advice on prescription delivered in person, or by phone or mail appeared to be more cost-effective than supervised gym-based exercise classes or instructor-led walking programmes. Many physical activity interventions had similar cost-utility estimates to funded pharmaceutical interventions and should be considered for funding at a similar level.
Authors: Emily B Kahn; Leigh T Ramsey; Ross C Brownson; Gregory W Heath; Elizabeth H Howze; Kenneth E Powell; Elaine J Stone; Mummy W Rajab; Phaedra Corso Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ping Zhang; Michael M Engelgau; Susan L Norris; Edward W Gregg; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: C Raina Elley; Sue Garrett; Sally B Rose; Des O'Dea; Beverley A Lawton; Simon A Moyes; Anthony C Dowell Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: James F Munro; Jon P Nicholl; John E Brazier; Rachel Davey; Tom Cochrane Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Sarah J Hardcastle; Chloe Maxwell-Smith; Sviatlana Kamarova; Stephanie Lamb; Lesley Millar; Paul A Cohen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karla I Galaviz; Paul A Estabrooks; Edtna Jauregui Ulloa; Rebecca E Lee; Ian Janssen; Juan López Y Taylor; Luis Ortiz-Hernández; Lucie Lévesque Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: John B Jemmott; Loretta S Jemmott; Zolani Ngwane; Jingwen Zhang; G Anita Heeren; Larry D Icard; Ann O'Leary; Xoliswa Mtose; Anne Teitelman; Craig Carty Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Massimo F Piepoli; Arno W Hoes; Stefan Agewall; Christian Albus; Carlos Brotons; Alberico L Catapano; Marie-Therese Cooney; Ugo Corrà; Bernard Cosyns; Christi Deaton; Ian Graham; Michael Stephen Hall; F D Richard Hobbs; Maja-Lisa Løchen; Herbert Löllgen; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Joep Perk; Eva Prescott; Josep Redon; Dimitrios J Richter; Naveed Sattar; Yvo Smulders; Monica Tiberi; H Bart van der Worp; Ineke van Dis; W M Monique Verschuren; Simone Binno Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 29.983