BACKGROUND: The financial burden and human losses associated with noncommunicable diseases necessitate cost-effective and efficacious interventions. PURPOSE: An economic analysis of the Lifestyle Education for Activity and Nutrition (LEAN) Study; an RCT that examined the efficacy of traditional and technology-based approaches to weight loss. METHODS: Economic analyses from an organizational perspective were conducted for four approaches: standard care control (SC); group weight-loss education (GWL); a multisensor armband (SWA); and the armband in combination with group weight-loss education (GWL+SWA). Data were collected in 2008-2009. Weight loss was the primary outcome. Total costs, costs per participant, costs per kilogram lost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated in 2010-2011. All costs are the actual expenses (i.e., staff time and materials) incurred by the LEAN study (except where noted) and reported in 2010 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In the sample population of 197 sedentary, overweight, and obese adults (mean [±SD] age=46.9 ± 0.8 years, BMI=33.3 ± 5.2, weight=92.8 ± 18.4 kg), the GWL+SWA was the most expensive intervention in costs/participant ($365/partic) while yielding the greatest weight loss/partic (6.59 kg). The GWL was next in cost/partic ($240), but the SWA was less expensive in cost/partic ($183) and more efficacious (3.55 vs 1.86 kg/partic). The SC did not achieve significant weight loss. The SWA was the most cost effective ($51/partic/kg lost), followed by the GWL+SWA ($55) and GWL alone ($129). The ICER suggests that for each additional kilogram lost, the GWL+SWA cost $60 more than the SWA alone. CONCLUSIONS: The SWA was the most cost-effective intervention ($51/partic/kg lost). The addition of the GWL increased the efficacy of the SWA intervention but increased costs by $60/partic for each additional kilogram lost. The technology-based approaches were more cost effective and efficacious than traditional approaches in promoting weight loss via lifestyle changes in sedentary, overweight, and obese adults.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The financial burden and human losses associated with noncommunicable diseases necessitate cost-effective and efficacious interventions. PURPOSE: An economic analysis of the Lifestyle Education for Activity and Nutrition (LEAN) Study; an RCT that examined the efficacy of traditional and technology-based approaches to weight loss. METHODS: Economic analyses from an organizational perspective were conducted for four approaches: standard care control (SC); group weight-loss education (GWL); a multisensor armband (SWA); and the armband in combination with group weight-loss education (GWL+SWA). Data were collected in 2008-2009. Weight loss was the primary outcome. Total costs, costs per participant, costs per kilogram lost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated in 2010-2011. All costs are the actual expenses (i.e., staff time and materials) incurred by the LEAN study (except where noted) and reported in 2010 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: In the sample population of 197 sedentary, overweight, and obese adults (mean [±SD] age=46.9 ± 0.8 years, BMI=33.3 ± 5.2, weight=92.8 ± 18.4 kg), the GWL+SWA was the most expensive intervention in costs/participant ($365/partic) while yielding the greatest weight loss/partic (6.59 kg). The GWL was next in cost/partic ($240), but the SWA was less expensive in cost/partic ($183) and more efficacious (3.55 vs 1.86 kg/partic). The SC did not achieve significant weight loss. The SWA was the most cost effective ($51/partic/kg lost), followed by the GWL+SWA ($55) and GWL alone ($129). The ICER suggests that for each additional kilogram lost, the GWL+SWA cost $60 more than the SWA alone. CONCLUSIONS: The SWA was the most cost-effective intervention ($51/partic/kg lost). The addition of the GWL increased the efficacy of the SWA intervention but increased costs by $60/partic for each additional kilogram lost. The technology-based approaches were more cost effective and efficacious than traditional approaches in promoting weight loss via lifestyle changes in sedentary, overweight, and obese adults.
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: Ashlea Braun; James Portner; Elizabeth M Grainger; Emily B Hill; Gregory S Young; Steven K Clinton; Colleen K Spees Journal: J Nutr Educ Behav Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Molly E Waring; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Marta M Holovatska; Claudia Mejia; Jamasia C Williams; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Andrea T Kozak; Joanna Buscemi; Misty A W Hawkins; Monica L Wang; Jessica Y Breland; Kathryn M Ross; Anupama Kommu Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-10-25
Authors: Niharika N Bhardwaj; Bezawit Wodajo; Keerthi Gochipathala; David P Paul; Alberto Coustasse Journal: Perspect Health Inf Manag Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Sheri J Hartman; Lauren S Weiner; Loki Natarajan; Dorothy D Sears; Barton W Palmer; Barbara Parker; Tim Ahles; Melinda L Irwin; Kaylene Au Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Lori Pbert; Michelle Trivedi; Susan Druker; Jennifer Bram; Barbara Olendzki; Sybil Crawford; Christine Frisard; Victoria Andersen; Molly E Waring; Karen Clements; Kristin Schneider; Alan C Geller Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 2.226