Anja Mizdrak1, Ding Ding2,3, Christine Cleghorn4, Tony Blakely4,5, Justin Richards6,7. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Otago (Wellington), 23 Mein Street, Newtown, Wellington, New Zealand. anja.mizdrak@otago.ac.nz. 2. Prevention Research Collaboration, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 3. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 4. Department of Public Health, University of Otago (Wellington), 23 Mein Street, Newtown, Wellington, New Zealand. 5. Population Interventions, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Faculty of Health, Victoria University Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand. 7. Sport New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization launched the Global Action Plan for Physical Activity (GAPPA) in 2018, which set a global target of a 15% relative reduction in the prevalence of physical inactivity by 2030. This target, however, could be acheived in various ways. METHODS: We use an established multi-state life table model to estimate the health and economic gains that would accrue over the lifetime of the 2011 New Zealand population if the GAPPA target was met under two different approaches: (1) an equal shift approach where physical activity increases by the same absolute amount for everyone; (2) a proportional shift approach where physical activity increases proportionally to current activity levels. FINDINGS: An equal shift approach to meeting the GAPPA target would result in 197,000 health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) gained (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 152,000-246,000) and healthcare system cost savings of US$1.57b (95%UI $1.16b-$2.03b; 0% discount rate). A proportional shift to the GAPPA target would result in 158,000 HALYs (95%UI 127,000-194,000) and US$1.29billion (95%UI $0.99b-$1.64b) savings to the healthcare system. INTERPRETATION: Achieving the GAPPA target would result in large health gains and savings to the healthcare system. However, not all population approaches to increasing physical activity are equal-some population shifts bring greater health benefits. Our results demonstrate the need to consider the entire population physical activity distribution in addition to evaluating progress towards a target.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization launched the Global Action Plan for Physical Activity (GAPPA) in 2018, which set a global target of a 15% relative reduction in the prevalence of physical inactivity by 2030. This target, however, could be acheived in various ways. METHODS: We use an established multi-state life table model to estimate the health and economic gains that would accrue over the lifetime of the 2011 New Zealand population if the GAPPA target was met under two different approaches: (1) an equal shift approach where physical activity increases by the same absolute amount for everyone; (2) a proportional shift approach where physical activity increases proportionally to current activity levels. FINDINGS: An equal shift approach to meeting the GAPPA target would result in 197,000 health-adjusted life-years (HALYs) gained (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 152,000-246,000) and healthcare system cost savings of US$1.57b (95%UI $1.16b-$2.03b; 0% discount rate). A proportional shift to the GAPPA target would result in 158,000 HALYs (95%UI 127,000-194,000) and US$1.29billion (95%UI $0.99b-$1.64b) savings to the healthcare system. INTERPRETATION: Achieving the GAPPA target would result in large health gains and savings to the healthcare system. However, not all population approaches to increasing physical activity are equal-some population shifts bring greater health benefits. Our results demonstrate the need to consider the entire population physical activity distribution in addition to evaluating progress towards a target.
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: Tony Blakely; Cristine Cleghorn; Frederieke Petrović-van der Deen; Linda J Cobiac; Anja Mizdrak; Johan P Mackenbach; Alistair Woodward; Pieter van Baal; Nick Wilson Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Frederieke S van der Deen; Nick Wilson; Christine L Cleghorn; Giorgi Kvizhinadze; Linda J Cobiac; Nhung Nghiem; Tony Blakely Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Felipe B Schuch; Davy Vancampfort; Justin Richards; Simon Rosenbaum; Philip B Ward; Brendon Stubbs Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 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: Ding Ding; Andrea Ramirez Varela; Adrian E Bauman; Ulf Ekelund; I-Min Lee; Gregory Heath; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Rodrigo Reis; Michael Pratt Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 13.800