↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of providing antenatal lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese: the LIMIT randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Obesity, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 187)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
The cost-effectiveness of providing antenatal lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese: the LIMIT randomised trial
Published in
BMC Obesity, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40608-015-0046-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie M Dodd, Sharmina Ahmed, Jonathan Karnon, Wendy Umberger, Andrea R Deussen, Thach Tran, Rosalie M Grivell, Caroline A Crowther, Deborah Turnbull, Andrew J McPhee, Gary Wittert, Julie A Owens, Jeffrey S Robinson, For the LIMIT Randomised Trial Group

Abstract

Overweight and obesity during pregnancy is common, although robust evidence about the economic implications of providing an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention for women who are overweight or obese is lacking. We conducted a health economic evaluation in parallel with the LIMIT randomised trial. Women with a singleton pregnancy, between 10(+0)-20(+0) weeks, and BMI ≥25 kg/m(2) were randomised to Lifestyle Advice (a comprehensive antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention) or Standard Care. The economic evaluation took the perspective of the health care system and its patients, and compared costs encountered from the additional use of resources from time of randomisation until six weeks postpartum. Increments in health outcomes for both the woman and infant were considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Mean costs and effects in the treatment groups allocated at randomisation were compared, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and confidence intervals (95%) calculated. Bootstrapping was used to confirm the estimated confidence intervals, and to generate acceptability curves representing the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at alternative monetary equivalent values for the outcomes avoiding high infant birth weight, and respiratory distress syndrome. Analyses utilised intention to treat principles. Overall, the increase in mean costs associated with providing the intervention was offset by savings associated with improved immediate neonatal outcomes, rendering the intervention cost neutral (Lifestyle Advice Group $11261.19±$14573.97 versus Standard Care Group $11306.70±$14562.02; p=0.094). Using a monetary value of $20,000 as a threshold value for avoiding an additional infant with birth weight above 4 kg, the probability that the antenatal intervention is cost-effective is 0.85, which increases to 0.95 when the threshold monetary value increases to $45,000. Providing an antenatal dietary and lifestyle intervention for pregnant women who are overweight or obese is not associated with increased costs or cost savings, but is associated with a high probability of cost effectiveness. Ongoing participant follow-up into childhood is required to determine the medium to long-term impact of the observed, short-term endpoints, to more accurately estimate the value of the intervention on risk of obesity, and associated costs and health outcomes. Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000161426).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,837,972
of 25,307,332 outputs
Outputs from BMC Obesity
#22
of 187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,704
of 265,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Obesity
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,307,332 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 265,885 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.