Short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness of a pedometer-based exercise intervention in primary care: A within-trial analysis and beyond-trial modelling

TY - JOUR

T1 - Short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness of a pedometer-based exercise intervention in primary care

T2 - A within-trial analysis and beyond-trial modelling

AU - Anokye, Nana

AU - Fox-Rushby, Julia

AU - Sanghera, Sabina

AU - Cook, Derek G.

AU - Limb, Elizabeth

AU - Furness, Cheryl

AU - Kerry, Sally Margaret

AU - Victor, Christina R.

AU - Iliffe, Steve

AU - Ussher, Michael

AU - Whincup, Peter H.

AU - Ekelund, Ulf

AU - Dewilde, Stephen

AU - Harris, Tess

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Objectives A short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two pedometer-based walking interventions compared with usual care. Design (A) Short-term CEA: Parallel three-arm cluster randomised trial randomised by household. (B) Long-term CEA: Markov decision model. Setting Seven primary care practices in South London, UK. Participants (A) Short-term CEA: 1023 people (922 households) aged 45-75 years without physical activity (PA) contraindications. (b) Long-term CEA: A cohort of 100 000 people aged 59-88 years. Interventions Pedometers, 12-week walking programmes and PA diaries delivered by post or through three PA consultations with practice nurses. Primary and secondary outcome measures Accelerometer-measured change (baseline to 12 months) in average daily step count and time in 10 min bouts of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), and EQ-5D-5L quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Methods Resource use costs (£2013/2014) from a National Health Service perspective, presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each outcome over a 1-year and lifetime horizon, with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and willingness to pay per QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluate uncertainty. Results (A) Short-term CEA: At 12 months, incremental cost was £3.61 (£109)/min in ≥10 min MVPA bouts for nurse support compared with control (postal group). At £20 000/QALY, the postal group had a 50% chance of being cost saving compared with control. (B) Long-term CEA: The postal group had more QALYs (+759 QALYs, 95% CI 400 to 1247) and lower costs (-£11 million, 95% CI -12 to -10) than control and nurse groups, resulting in an incremental net monetary benefit of £26 million per 100 000 population. Results were sensitive to reporting serious adverse events, excluding health service use, and including all participant costs. Conclusions Postal delivery of a pedometer intervention in primary care is cost-effective long term and has a 50% chance of being cost-effective, through resource savings, within 1 year. Further research should ascertain maintenance of the higher levels of PA, and its impact on quality of life and health service use.

AB - Objectives A short-term and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of two pedometer-based walking interventions compared with usual care. Design (A) Short-term CEA: Parallel three-arm cluster randomised trial randomised by household. (B) Long-term CEA: Markov decision model. Setting Seven primary care practices in South London, UK. Participants (A) Short-term CEA: 1023 people (922 households) aged 45-75 years without physical activity (PA) contraindications. (b) Long-term CEA: A cohort of 100 000 people aged 59-88 years. Interventions Pedometers, 12-week walking programmes and PA diaries delivered by post or through three PA consultations with practice nurses. Primary and secondary outcome measures Accelerometer-measured change (baseline to 12 months) in average daily step count and time in 10 min bouts of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), and EQ-5D-5L quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Methods Resource use costs (£2013/2014) from a National Health Service perspective, presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each outcome over a 1-year and lifetime horizon, with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and willingness to pay per QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluate uncertainty. Results (A) Short-term CEA: At 12 months, incremental cost was £3.61 (£109)/min in ≥10 min MVPA bouts for nurse support compared with control (postal group). At £20 000/QALY, the postal group had a 50% chance of being cost saving compared with control. (B) Long-term CEA: The postal group had more QALYs (+759 QALYs, 95% CI 400 to 1247) and lower costs (-£11 million, 95% CI -12 to -10) than control and nurse groups, resulting in an incremental net monetary benefit of £26 million per 100 000 population. Results were sensitive to reporting serious adverse events, excluding health service use, and including all participant costs. Conclusions Postal delivery of a pedometer intervention in primary care is cost-effective long term and has a 50% chance of being cost-effective, through resource savings, within 1 year. Further research should ascertain maintenance of the higher levels of PA, and its impact on quality of life and health service use.

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - long-term modelling

KW - physical activity

KW - RCT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055075342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021978

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021978

M3 - Article

C2 - 30337309

AN - SCOPUS:85055075342

VL - 8

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

IS - 10

M1 - e021978

ER -