↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 analysis of offering free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public receiving state benefits: a case study
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Talitha I. Verhoef, Verena Trend, Barry Kelly, Nigel Robinson, Paul Fox, Stephen Morris

Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Give-it-a-Go programme, which offers free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public in a single London Borough receiving state benefits. A decision analytic Markov model was developed to analyse lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 1025 people recruited to the intervention versus no intervention. In the intervention group, people were offered 4 months of free membership at a leisure centre. Physical activity levels were assessed at 0 and 4 months using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Higher levels of physical activity were assumed to decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus type II, as well as improve mental health. Costs were assessed from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. One-hundred fifty nine participants (15.5 %) completed the programme by attending the leisure centre for 4 months. Compared with no intervention, Give it a Go increased costs by £67.25 and QALYs by 0.0033 (equivalent to 1.21 days in full health) per recruited person. The incremental costs per QALY gained were £20,347. The results were highly sensitive to the magnitude of mental health gain due to physical activity and the duration of the effect of the programme (1 year in the base case analysis). When the mental health gain was omitted from the analysis, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased to almost £1.5 million. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the incremental costs per QALY gained were below £20,000 in 39 % of the 5000 simulations. Give it a Go did not significantly increase life-expectancy, but had a positive influence on quality of life due to the mental health gain of physical activity. If the increase in physical activity caused by Give it a Go lasts for more than 1 year, the programme would be cost-effective given a willingness to pay for a QALY of £20,000.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Psychology 8 8%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,327,770
of 25,556,408 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,181
of 17,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,456
of 378,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#182
of 368 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,556,408 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 378,907 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 368 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 50% of its contemporaries.