Literature DB >> 28446455

The economic burden of physical inactivity: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Ding Ding1,2, Tracy Kolbe-Alexander3,4, Binh Nguyen1, Peter T Katzmarzyk5, Michael Pratt6, Kenny D Lawson2,7.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the literature on the economic burden of physical inactivity in populations, with emphases on appraising the methodologies and providing recommendations for future studies.
DESIGN: Systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016047705). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases for peer-reviewed and grey literature were systematically searched, followed by reference searching and consultation with experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that examined the economic consequences of physical inactivity in a population/population-based sample, with clearly stated methodologies and at least an abstract/summary written in English.
RESULTS: Of the 40 eligible studies, 27 focused on direct healthcare costs only, 13 also estimated indirect costs and one study additionally estimated household costs. For direct costs, 23 studies used a population attributable fraction (PAF) approach with estimated healthcare costs attributable to physical inactivity ranging from 0.3% to 4.6% of national healthcare expenditure; 17 studies used an econometric approach, which tended to yield higher estimates than those using a PAF approach. For indirect costs, 10 studies used a human capital approach, two used a friction cost approach and one used a value of a statistical life approach. Overall, estimates varied substantially, even within the same country, depending on analytical approaches, time frame and other methodological considerations.
CONCLUSION: Estimating the economic burden of physical inactivity is an area of increasing importance that requires further development. There is a marked lack of consistency in methodological approaches and transparency of reporting. Future studies could benefit from cross-disciplinary collaborations involving economists and physical activity experts, taking a societal perspective and following best practices in conducting and reporting analysis, including accounting for potential confounding, reverse causality and comorbidity, applying discounting and sensitivity analysis, and reporting assumptions, limitations and justifications for approaches taken. We have adapted the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist as a guide for future estimates of the economic burden of physical inactivity and other risk factors. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost analysis; economic burden; economic cost; health expenditure; healthcare cost; physical activity; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28446455     DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  31 in total

1.  Innovative playgrounds: use, physical activity, and implications for health.

Authors:  M Talarowski; D A Cohen; S Williamson; B Han
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 2.427

2.  Brain Structure and Function Predict Adherence to an Exercise Intervention in Older Adults.

Authors:  Timothy P Morris; Agnieszka Burzynska; Michelle Voss; Jason Fanning; Elizabeth A Salerno; Ruchika Prakash; Neha P Gothe; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Charles H Hillman; Edward McAuley; Arthur F Kramer
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2022-04-25

3.  Habitual physical activity patterns in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults.

Authors:  Susan K Malone; Freda Patterson; Laura Grunin; Gail D Melkus; Barbara Riegel; Naresh Punjabi; Gary Yu; Jacek Urbanek; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Allan Pack
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 4.  Physical Activity Interventions for Primary Prevention in Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Economic Evaluations.

Authors:  Renato Mattli; Renato Farcher; Maria-Eleni Syleouni; Simon Wieser; Nicole Probst-Hensch; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; Matthias Schwenkglenks
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Economic burden of low physical activity and high sedentary behaviour in Finland.

Authors:  Päivi Kolu; Jaana T Kari; Jani Raitanen; Harri Sievänen; Kari Tokola; Eino Havas; Jaakko Pehkonen; Tuija H Tammelin; Katja Pahkala; Nina Hutri-Kähönen; Olli T Raitakari; Tommi Vasankari
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 6.286

Review 6.  A Literature Review of Productivity Loss Associated with Hypertension in the United States.

Authors:  Kara E MacLeod; Zhiqiu Ye; Bruce Donald; Guijing Wang
Journal:  Popul Health Manag       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 2.290

7.  Prevalence and predictors of physical inactivity levels among Kenyan adults (18-69 years): an analysis of STEPS survey 2015.

Authors:  Muthoni Gichu; Gershim Asiki; Pamela Juma; Joseph Kibachio; Catherine Kyobutungi; Elijah Ogola
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Diagnoses and time to recovery among injured recreational runners in the RUN CLEVER trial.

Authors:  Benjamin Mulvad; Rasmus Oestergaard Nielsen; Martin Lind; Daniel Ramskov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The Effects of Passive Simulated Jogging on Short-Term Heart Rate Variability in a Heterogeneous Group of Human Subjects.

Authors:  Jose A Adams; Shivam Patel; Jose R Lopez; Marvin A Sackner
Journal:  J Sports Med (Hindawi Publ Corp)       Date:  2018-10-01

10.  Motivation for Physical Activity: Validation of the Dutch Version of the Physical Activity and Leisure Motivation Scale (PALMS).

Authors:  Wim van Lankveld; Fieke Linskens; Niki Stolwijk
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.