Leonie Heron1,2, Mark A Tully3, Frank Kee4, Ciaran O'Neill4. 1. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland. leonie.heron@ispm.unibe.ch. 2. Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science, Block A, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK. leonie.heron@ispm.unibe.ch. 3. School of Medicine, Ulster University, Londonderry, BT48 7JL, UK. 4. Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science, Block A, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, BT12 6BA, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity increases the risk of chronic disease and mortality. The high prevalence of physical inactivity in the UK is likely to increase financial pressure on the National Health Service. The UK Biobank Study offered an opportunity to assess the impact of physical inactivity on healthcare use and spending using individual-level data and objective measures of physical activity. The objective of this study was to assess the associations between objectively measured physical activity levels and future inpatient days and costs in adults in the UK Biobank study. METHODS: We conducted an econometric analysis of the UK Biobank study, a large prospective cohort study. The participants (n = 86,066) were UK adults aged 43-79 who had provided sufficient valid accelerometer data. Hospital inpatient days and costs were discounted and standardised to mean monthly values per person to adjust for the variation in follow-up times. Econometric models adjusted for BMI, long-standing illness, and other sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time for the sample was 28.11 (SD 7.65) months. Adults in the most active group experienced 0.037 fewer days per month (0.059-0.016) and 14.1% lower inpatient costs ( - £3.81 [ - £6.71 to - £0.91] monthly inpatient costs) compared to adults in the least active group. The relationship between physical activity and inpatient costs was stronger in women compared to men and amongst those in the lowest income group compared to others. The findings remained significant across various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing physical activity levels in the UK may reduce inpatient hospitalisations and costs, especially in women and lower-income groups.
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity increases the risk of chronic disease and mortality. The high prevalence of physical inactivity in the UK is likely to increase financial pressure on the National Health Service. The UK Biobank Study offered an opportunity to assess the impact of physical inactivity on healthcare use and spending using individual-level data and objective measures of physical activity. The objective of this study was to assess the associations between objectively measured physical activity levels and future inpatient days and costs in adults in the UK Biobank study. METHODS: We conducted an econometric analysis of the UK Biobank study, a large prospective cohort study. The participants (n = 86,066) were UK adults aged 43-79 who had provided sufficient valid accelerometer data. Hospital inpatient days and costs were discounted and standardised to mean monthly values per person to adjust for the variation in follow-up times. Econometric models adjusted for BMI, long-standing illness, and other sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time for the sample was 28.11 (SD 7.65) months. Adults in the most active group experienced 0.037 fewer days per month (0.059-0.016) and 14.1% lower inpatient costs ( - £3.81 [ - £6.71 to - £0.91] monthly inpatient costs) compared to adults in the least active group. The relationship between physical activity and inpatient costs was stronger in women compared to men and amongst those in the lowest income group compared to others. The findings remained significant across various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing physical activity levels in the UK may reduce inpatient hospitalisations and costs, especially in women and lower-income groups.
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: Vincent T van Hees; Frida Renström; Antony Wright; Anna Gradmark; Michael Catt; Kong Y Chen; Marie Löf; Les Bluck; Jeremy Pomeroy; Nicholas J Wareham; Ulf Ekelund; Søren Brage; Paul W Franks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Cathie Sudlow; John Gallacher; Naomi Allen; Valerie Beral; Paul Burton; John Danesh; Paul Downey; Paul Elliott; Jane Green; Martin Landray; Bette Liu; Paul Matthews; Giok Ong; Jill Pell; Alan Silman; Alan Young; Tim Sprosen; Tim Peakman; Rory Collins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Aiden Doherty; Dan Jackson; Nils Hammerla; Thomas Plötz; Patrick Olivier; Malcolm H Granat; Tom White; Vincent T van Hees; Michael I Trenell; Christoper G Owen; Stephen J Preece; Rob Gillions; Simon Sheard; Tim Peakman; Soren Brage; Nicholas J Wareham Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fiona C Bull; Salih S Al-Ansari; Stuart Biddle; Katja Borodulin; Matthew P Buman; Greet Cardon; Catherine Carty; Jean-Philippe Chaput; Sebastien Chastin; Roger Chou; Paddy C Dempsey; Loretta DiPietro; Ulf Ekelund; Joseph Firth; Christine M Friedenreich; Leandro Garcia; Muthoni Gichu; Russell Jago; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Estelle Lambert; Michael Leitzmann; Karen Milton; Francisco B Ortega; Chathuranga Ranasinghe; Emmanuel Stamatakis; Anne Tiedemann; Richard P Troiano; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Vicky Wari; Juana F Willumsen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Stéphanie A Prince; Kristi B Adamo; Meghan E Hamel; Jill Hardt; Sarah Connor Gorber; Mark Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 6.457