Cargando…

Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education interven...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Haiquan, Li, Yanping, Du, Songming, Zhang, Qian, Liu, Ailing, Sun, Junmao, Ma, Guansheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33097026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x
_version_ 1783599731566444544
author Xu, Haiquan
Li, Yanping
Du, Songming
Zhang, Qian
Liu, Ailing
Sun, Junmao
Ma, Guansheng
author_facet Xu, Haiquan
Li, Yanping
Du, Songming
Zhang, Qian
Liu, Ailing
Sun, Junmao
Ma, Guansheng
author_sort Xu, Haiquan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost–utility ratio (CUR) and A cost–benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions. RESULTS: The CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7585177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75851772020-10-26 Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program Xu, Haiquan Li, Yanping Du, Songming Zhang, Qian Liu, Ailing Sun, Junmao Ma, Guansheng BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost–utility ratio (CUR) and A cost–benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions. RESULTS: The CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x. BioMed Central 2020-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7585177/ /pubmed/33097026 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Xu, Haiquan
Li, Yanping
Du, Songming
Zhang, Qian
Liu, Ailing
Sun, Junmao
Ma, Guansheng
Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title_full Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title_fullStr Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title_full_unstemmed Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title_short Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
title_sort cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7585177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33097026
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x
work_keys_str_mv AT xuhaiquan costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT liyanping costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT dusongming costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT zhangqian costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT liuailing costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT sunjunmao costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram
AT maguansheng costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram