Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial
OBJECTIVE: Ten Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cos...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017511 |
_version_ | 1783347442905776128 |
---|---|
author | Patel, Nishma Beeken, Rebecca J Leurent, Baptiste Omar, Rumana Z Nazareth, Irwin Morris, Stephen |
author_facet | Patel, Nishma Beeken, Rebecca J Leurent, Baptiste Omar, Rumana Z Nazareth, Irwin Morris, Stephen |
author_sort | Patel, Nishma |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Ten Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 general practitioner practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2). A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Health service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation. RESULTS: Over a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16347068; Post-results. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6091904 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60919042018-08-17 Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial Patel, Nishma Beeken, Rebecca J Leurent, Baptiste Omar, Rumana Z Nazareth, Irwin Morris, Stephen BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVE: Ten Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. DESIGN: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 general practitioner practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2). A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Health service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation. RESULTS: Over a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16347068; Post-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6091904/ /pubmed/30104307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017511 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Economics Patel, Nishma Beeken, Rebecca J Leurent, Baptiste Omar, Rumana Z Nazareth, Irwin Morris, Stephen Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title | Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the ten top tips (10tt) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Health Economics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104307 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017511 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT patelnishma costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT beekenrebeccaj costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT leurentbaptiste costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT omarrumanaz costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT nazarethirwin costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial AT morrisstephen costeffectivenessofhabitbasedadviceforweightcontrolversususualcareingeneralpracticeinthetentoptips10tttrialeconomicevaluationbasedonarandomisedcontrolledtrial |