Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Give-it-a-Go programme, which offers free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public in a single London Borough receiving state benefits. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was developed to analyse lifetime co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27449787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x |
_version_ | 1782444152699486208 |
---|---|
author | Verhoef, Talitha I. Trend, Verena Kelly, Barry Robinson, Nigel Fox, Paul Morris, Stephen |
author_facet | Verhoef, Talitha I. Trend, Verena Kelly, Barry Robinson, Nigel Fox, Paul Morris, Stephen |
author_sort | Verhoef, Talitha I. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Give-it-a-Go programme, which offers free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public in a single London Borough receiving state benefits. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was developed to analyse lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 1025 people recruited to the intervention versus no intervention. In the intervention group, people were offered 4 months of free membership at a leisure centre. Physical activity levels were assessed at 0 and 4 months using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Higher levels of physical activity were assumed to decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus type II, as well as improve mental health. Costs were assessed from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty nine participants (15.5 %) completed the programme by attending the leisure centre for 4 months. Compared with no intervention, Give it a Go increased costs by £67.25 and QALYs by 0.0033 (equivalent to 1.21 days in full health) per recruited person. The incremental costs per QALY gained were £20,347. The results were highly sensitive to the magnitude of mental health gain due to physical activity and the duration of the effect of the programme (1 year in the base case analysis). When the mental health gain was omitted from the analysis, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased to almost £1.5 million. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the incremental costs per QALY gained were below £20,000 in 39 % of the 5000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Give it a Go did not significantly increase life-expectancy, but had a positive influence on quality of life due to the mental health gain of physical activity. If the increase in physical activity caused by Give it a Go lasts for more than 1 year, the programme would be cost-effective given a willingness to pay for a QALY of £20,000. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4957286 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49572862016-07-23 Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study Verhoef, Talitha I. Trend, Verena Kelly, Barry Robinson, Nigel Fox, Paul Morris, Stephen BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Give-it-a-Go programme, which offers free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public in a single London Borough receiving state benefits. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov model was developed to analyse lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 1025 people recruited to the intervention versus no intervention. In the intervention group, people were offered 4 months of free membership at a leisure centre. Physical activity levels were assessed at 0 and 4 months using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Higher levels of physical activity were assumed to decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus type II, as well as improve mental health. Costs were assessed from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty nine participants (15.5 %) completed the programme by attending the leisure centre for 4 months. Compared with no intervention, Give it a Go increased costs by £67.25 and QALYs by 0.0033 (equivalent to 1.21 days in full health) per recruited person. The incremental costs per QALY gained were £20,347. The results were highly sensitive to the magnitude of mental health gain due to physical activity and the duration of the effect of the programme (1 year in the base case analysis). When the mental health gain was omitted from the analysis, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased to almost £1.5 million. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the incremental costs per QALY gained were below £20,000 in 39 % of the 5000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Give it a Go did not significantly increase life-expectancy, but had a positive influence on quality of life due to the mental health gain of physical activity. If the increase in physical activity caused by Give it a Go lasts for more than 1 year, the programme would be cost-effective given a willingness to pay for a QALY of £20,000. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4957286/ /pubmed/27449787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Verhoef, Talitha I. Trend, Verena Kelly, Barry Robinson, Nigel Fox, Paul Morris, Stephen Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title | Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4957286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27449787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT verhoeftalithai costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy AT trendverena costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy AT kellybarry costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy AT robinsonnigel costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy AT foxpaul costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy AT morrisstephen costeffectivenessanalysisofofferingfreeleisurecentremembershipstophysicallyinactivemembersofthepublicreceivingstatebenefitsacasestudy |