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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Verhoef, Talitha I., Trend, Verena, Kelly, Barry, Robinson, Nigel, Fox, Paul, Morris, Stephen
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