Penny Reeves1,2, Kim Edmunds3,4, Zoe Szewczyk3,4, Alice Grady4,5,6, Sze Lin Yoong4,5,6, Luke Wolfenden4,5,6, Rebecca Wyse4, Meghan Finch3,4,5,6, Fiona Stacey5, John Wiggers4,5,6, Andrew Searles3,4. 1. Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia. Penny.reeves@hmri.org.au. 2. School of Medicine and Public health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia. Penny.reeves@hmri.org.au. 3. Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI), New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia. 4. School of Medicine and Public health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, 2308, Australia. 5. Hunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, New South Wales, 2287, Australia. 6. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial. METHODS: The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money. RESULTS: Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of - $482 (95% UI - $859, - $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated. CONCLUSION: Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial. METHODS: The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money. RESULTS: Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of - $482 (95% UI - $859, - $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated. CONCLUSION: Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404.
Authors: Josephine A Mauskopf; Sean D Sullivan; Lieven Annemans; Jaime Caro; C Daniel Mullins; Mark Nuijten; Ewa Orlewska; John Watkins; Paul Trueman Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sze Lin Yoong; Alice Grady; John Wiggers; Victoria Flood; Chris Rissel; Meghan Finch; Andrew Searles; David Salajan; Ruby O'Rourke; Jaqueline Daly; Karen Gilham; Fiona Stacey; Alison Fielding; Nicole Pond; Rebecca Wyse; Kirsty Seward; Luke Wolfenden Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Courtney Barnes; Sze Lin Yoong; Nicole Nathan; Luke Wolfenden; Taya Wedesweiler; Jayde Kerr; Dianne S Ward; Alice Grady Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sze Lin Yoong; Jannah Jones; Nicole Pearson; Taren Swindle; Courtney Barnes; Tessa Delaney; Melanie Lum; Rebecca Golley; Louisa Matwiejczyk; Bridget Kelly; Erin Kerr; Penelope Love; Emma Esdaile; Dianne Ward; Alice Grady Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390