RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) often arises from modifiable lifestyle factors. Health care professionals may lack the skills and resources to sustain behaviour change, lay 'health trainers' (LHT) offer a potential alternative. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a LHT to improve heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities. METHODS: Participants in this randomized trial were aged ≥18 years with at least one risk factor for CVD (hypertension, raised cholesterol, diabetes, BMI>30 or current smoker). Both groups received health promotion literature. LHT were also able to provide intervention participants with information, advice and support aimed at changing beliefs and behaviour. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) changes were estimated over 6 months. The cost-utility [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)] of LHT was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY. The probability of LHT being cost-effective was also calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants were randomized to a LHT, with 38 controls. The mean cost of the LHT intervention was £151. On average, other health and social service costs fell by £21 for controls and £75 for intervention participants giving a LHT mean overall incremental cost of £98. The mean QALY gains were 0.022 and 0.028, respectively. The ICER for LHT was £14 480, yet there was a 61% chance of making the wrong decision at a £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: LHT provision was estimated to be cost-effective for people at risk of CVD. However, a large level of uncertainty was associated with that decision.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) often arises from modifiable lifestyle factors. Health care professionals may lack the skills and resources to sustain behaviour change, lay 'health trainers' (LHT) offer a potential alternative. We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of using a LHT to improve heart-health lifestyles in deprived communities. METHODS: Participants in this randomized trial were aged ≥18 years with at least one risk factor for CVD (hypertension, raised cholesterol, diabetes, BMI>30 or current smoker). Both groups received health promotion literature. LHT were also able to provide intervention participants with information, advice and support aimed at changing beliefs and behaviour. Costs and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) changes were estimated over 6 months. The cost-utility [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)] of LHT was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000-30 000 per QALY. The probability of LHT being cost-effective was also calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants were randomized to a LHT, with 38 controls. The mean cost of the LHT intervention was £151. On average, other health and social service costs fell by £21 for controls and £75 for intervention participants giving a LHT mean overall incremental cost of £98. The mean QALY gains were 0.022 and 0.028, respectively. The ICER for LHT was £14 480, yet there was a 61% chance of making the wrong decision at a £20 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: LHT provision was estimated to be cost-effective for people at risk of CVD. However, a large level of uncertainty was associated with that decision.
Authors: Verughese Jacob; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; David P Hopkins; Jeffrey A Reynolds; Ka Zang Xiong; Christopher D Jones; Betsy J Rodriguez; Krista K Proia; Nicolaas P Pronk; John M Clymer; Ron Z Goetzel Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Maria Woringer; Jessica Jones Nielsen; Lara Zibarras; Julie Evason; Angelos P Kassianos; Matthew Harris; Azeem Majeed; Michael Soljak Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 2.692