↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a Web-based or print-delivered tailored intervention to promote physical activity among adults aged over fifty: an economic evaluation of the Active Plus…

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a Web-based or print-delivered tailored intervention to promote physical activity among adults aged over fifty: an economic evaluation of the Active Plus intervention
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12966-014-0122-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rianne HJ Golsteijn, Denise A Peels, Silvia MAA Evers, Catherine Bolman, Aart N Mudde, Hein de Vries, Lilian Lechner

Abstract

BackgroundThe adverse health effects of insufficient physical activity (PA) result in high costs to society. The economic burden of insufficient PA, which increases in our aging population, stresses the urgency for cost-effective interventions to promote PA among older adults. The current study provides insight in the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of different versions of a tailored PA intervention (Active Plus) among adults aged over fifty.MethodsThe intervention conditions (i.e. print-delivered basic (PB; N¿=¿439), print-delivered environmental (PE; N¿=¿435), Web-based basic (WB; N¿=¿423), Web-based environmental (WE; N¿=¿432) and a waiting-list control group were studied in a clustered randomized controlled trial. Intervention costs were registered during the trial. Health care costs, participant costs and productivity losses were identified and compared with the intervention effects on PA (in MET-hours per week) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) 12 months after the start of the intervention. Cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated per intervention condition. Non-parametric bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty.ResultsAs a whole (i.e. the four intervention conditions together) the Active Plus intervention was found to be cost-effective. The PB-intervention (ICER¿=¿¿-55/MET-hour), PE-intervention (ICER¿=¿¿-94/MET-hour) and the WE-intervention (ICER¿=¿¿-139/MET-hour) all resulted in higher effects on PA and lower societal costs than the control group. With regard to QALYs, the PB-intervention (ICUR¿=¿¿38,120/QALY), the PE-intervention (ICUR¿=¿¿405,892/QALY) and the WE-intervention (ICUR¿=¿¿-47,293/QALY) were found to be cost-effective when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¿20,000/QALY. In most cases PE had the highest probability to be cost-effective.ConclusionsThe Active Plus intervention was found to be a cost-effective manner to increase PA in a population aged over fifty when compared to no-intervention. The tailored Active Plus intervention delivered through printed material and with additional environmental information (PE) turned out to be the most cost-effective intervention condition as confirmed by the different sensitivity analyses. By increasing PA at relatively low costs, the Active Plus intervention can contribute to a better public health.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register: NTR2297.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 22%
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Psychology 12 11%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 25 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,916,503
of 12,776,767 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,115
of 1,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,963
of 231,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#76
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,776,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.