|Publication type:||Article in scientific journal|
|Type of review:||Peer review (publication)|
|Title:||Physical activity interventions for primary prevention in adults : a systematic review of randomized controlled trial-based economic evaluations|
|Published in:||Sports Medicine|
|Publisher / Ed. Institution:||Springer|
|Subject (DDC):||613: Personal health|
|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.|
|Fulltext version:||Published version|
|License (according to publishing contract):||Licence according to publishing contract|
|Departement:||School of Management and Law|
|Organisational Unit:||Winterthur Institute of Health Economics (WIG)|
|Appears in collections:||Publikationen School of Management and Law|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.