Renato Mattli1,2, Renato Farcher3, Maria-Eleni Syleouni3, Simon Wieser3, Nicole Probst-Hensch4,5, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss6, Matthias Schwenkglenks7. 1. Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. renato.mattli@unibas.ch. 2. Winterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland. renato.mattli@unibas.ch. 3. Winterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland. 4. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. 5. University of Basel, Petersplatz 1, 4001, Basel, Switzerland. 6. Division of Sports and Exercise Medicine, Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, Mittlere Allee 18, 4052, Basel, Switzerland. 7. Institute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a worldwide pandemic associated with major chronic diseases. Given limited resources, policy makers are in need of physical activity interventions that provide best value for money. OBJECTIVE: To summarize evidence from RCT-based economic evaluations of primary prevention physical activity interventions in adult populations outside the workplace setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of health economic evaluations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per MET-hour gained were estimated on the basis of mean differences in intervention costs and standardized effects between intervention and control groups. DATA SOURCES: Identification of relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and NHSEED). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cost-effectiveness analyses in which all data (except unit costs) came from one RCT investigating physical activity interventions for primary prevention or health promotion in an adult population in high-income countries. RESULTS: In twelve eligible studies, 22 interventions were investigated. Interventions were based on advice, goal setting and follow-up support, exercise classes, financial incentives or teaching on behavioral change. The ICER varied widely among the interventions and four interventions showed an ICER below the applied benchmark of US$0.44 to US$0.63 per MET-hour gained. These four interventions were based on individualized advice via print or web. CONCLUSION: We found evidence from RCTs indicating cost-effectiveness of some physical activity interventions for primary prevention in adults. However, the majority of interventions assessed would not be cost-effective according to the benchmark applied. Furthermore, our study showed that trial-based evidence on cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions is scarce. Therefore, we recommend that future studies investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of such interventions consider costs as an additional outcome and assess cost-effectiveness.
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a worldwide pandemic associated with major chronic diseases. Given limited resources, policy makers are in need of physical activity interventions that provide best value for money. OBJECTIVE: To summarize evidence from RCT-based economic evaluations of primary prevention physical activity interventions in adult populations outside the workplace setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of health economic evaluations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per MET-hour gained were estimated on the basis of mean differences in intervention costs and standardized effects between intervention and control groups. DATA SOURCES: Identification of relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and NHSEED). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cost-effectiveness analyses in which all data (except unit costs) came from one RCT investigating physical activity interventions for primary prevention or health promotion in an adult population in high-income countries. RESULTS: In twelve eligible studies, 22 interventions were investigated. Interventions were based on advice, goal setting and follow-up support, exercise classes, financial incentives or teaching on behavioral change. The ICER varied widely among the interventions and four interventions showed an ICER below the applied benchmark of US$0.44 to US$0.63 per MET-hour gained. These four interventions were based on individualized advice via print or web. CONCLUSION: We found evidence from RCTs indicating cost-effectiveness of some physical activity interventions for primary prevention in adults. However, the majority of interventions assessed would not be cost-effective according to the benchmark applied. Furthermore, our study showed that trial-based evidence on cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions is scarce. Therefore, we recommend that future studies investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of such interventions consider costs as an additional outcome and assess cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Ding Ding; Kenny D Lawson; Tracy L Kolbe-Alexander; Eric A Finkelstein; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Willem van Mechelen; Michael Pratt Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ding Ding; Tracy Kolbe-Alexander; Binh Nguyen; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Michael Pratt; Kenny D Lawson Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Veerle Van Holle; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Benedicte Deforche; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Delfien Van Dyck Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sara Ortolan; Daniel Neunhaeuserer; Giulia Quinto; Barbara Barra; Anna Centanini; Francesca Battista; Marco Vecchiato; Valentina De Marchi; Martina Celidoni; Vincenzo Rebba; Andrea Ermolao Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Sulaiman A Alshammari; Abdullah Z AlDhayan; Omar M Saad Al-Essa; Majed M Alosaimi; Badr M Al-Badr; Anas B Ali; Qusay A Ajlan Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2020-12-31