↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation alongside the DALI study, a European…

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 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 of healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: economic evaluation alongside the DALI study, a European multicenter randomized controlled trial
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0643-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Broekhuizen, David Simmons, Roland Devlieger, André van Assche, Goele Jans, Sander Galjaard, Rosa Corcoy, Juan M. Adelantado, Fidelma Dunne, Gernot Desoye, Jürgen Harreiter, Alexandra Kautzky-Willer, Peter Damm, Elisabeth R. Mathiesen, Dorte M. Jensen, Liselotte L. Andersen, Annunziata Lapolla, Maria G. Dalfra, Alessandra Bertolotto, Ewa Wender-Ozegowska, Agnieszka Zawiejska, David Hill, Frank J. Snoek, Judith G. M. Jelsma, Judith E. Bosmans, Mireille N. M. van Poppel, Johanna M. van Dongen

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with perinatal health risks to both mother and offspring, and represents a large economic burden. The DALI study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, undertaken to add to the knowledge base on the effectiveness of interventions for pregnant women at increased risk for GDM. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the healthy eating and/or physical activity promotion intervention compared to usual care among pregnant women at increased risk of GDM from a societal perspective. An economic evaluation was performed alongside a European multicenter-randomized controlled trial. A total of 435 pregnant women at increased risk of GDM in primary and secondary care settings in nine European countries, were recruited and randomly allocated to a healthy eating and physical activity promotion intervention (HE + PA intervention), a healthy eating promotion intervention (HE intervention), or a physical activity promotion intervention (PA intervention). Main outcome measures were gestational weight gain, fasting glucose, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and societal costs. Between-group total cost and effect differences were not significant, besides significantly less gestational weight gain in the HE + PA group compared with the usual care group at 35-37 weeks (-2.3;95%CI:-3.7;-0.9). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the HE + PA intervention was the preferred intervention strategy. At 35-37 weeks, it depends on the decision-makers' willingness to pay per kilogram reduction in gestational weight gain whether the HE + PA intervention is cost-effective for gestational weight gain, whereas it was not cost-effective for fasting glucose and HOMA-IR. After delivery, the HE + PA intervention was cost-effective for QALYs, which was predominantly caused by a large reduction in delivery-related costs. Healthy eating and physical activity promotion was found to be the preferred strategy for limiting gestational weight gain. As this intervention was cost-effective for QALYs after delivery, this study lends support for broad implementation. ISRCTN ISRCTN70595832 . Registered 2 December 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 317 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 13%
Student > Master 39 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Researcher 18 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 6%
Other 57 18%
Unknown 126 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 17%
Psychology 12 4%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Sports and Recreations 10 3%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 127 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,572,994
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#542
of 2,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,225
of 354,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
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 354,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.