Physical inactivity is an increasing problem. Owing to limited financial resources, one method of getting information on the cost-effectiveness of different types of prevention programs is to examine existing programs and their results. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the transferability of cost-effectiveness results of physical activity programs for children and adolescents to other contexts. Based on a systematic review of the literature, the transferability of the studies found was assessed using a sub-checklist of the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED). Thirteen studies of different physical activity interventions were found and analyzed. The results for transferability ranged from “low” to “very high”. A number of different factors influence a program’s cost-effectiveness (i.e., discount rate, time horizon, etc.). Therefore, transparency with regard to these factors is one fundamental element in the transferability of the results. A major point of criticism is that transferability is often limited because of lack of transparency. This paper is the first to provide both an overview and an assessment of transferability of economic evaluations of existing programs encouraging physical activity in children and adolescents. This allows decision makers to gain an impression on whether the findings are transferable to their decision contexts, which may lead to time and cost savings.
An increasing number of primary prevention programs aimed at promoting physical exercise in children and adolescents are being piloted. As resources are limited, it is important to ascertain the costs and benefits of such programs. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the currently available evidence on the cost-effectiveness of programs encouraging physical activity in children and adolescents and to assess their quality. A systematic review was conducted searching in well established literature databases considering all studies before February 2015. Citation tracking in Google Scholar and a manual search of the reference lists of included studies were used to consolidate this. The fundamental methodological elements of the included economic evaluations were extracted, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Pediatric Quality Appraisal Questionnaire (PQAQ). In total, 14 studies were included. Considering the performance of the economic evaluation, the studies showed wide variation. Most of the studies used a societal perspective for their analyses and discounted costs and effects. The findings ranged from US$11.59 for a person to become more active (cheapest intervention) up to US$669,138 for a disability adjusted life year (DALY) saved (most expensive intervention), with everything in between. Overall, the results of three studies are below a value of US$3061, with one of them even below US$200.00, for the achieved effects. For the other programs, the context-specific assessment of cost-effectiveness is problematic as there are different thresholds for cost-effectiveness in different countries or no clearly defined thresholds at all. There are multiple methodological difficulties involved in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity, which results in little consistency between different evaluations. The quality of the evaluations ranged from poor to excellent while a large majority of them was of very good methodological quality. Better comparability could be reached by greater standardization, especially regarding systematic consideration of implementation costs.
BackgroundDetermining what constitutes “good practice” in the measurement of the costs and effects of health promotion and disease prevention measures is of particular importance. The aim of this paper was to gather expert knowledge on (economic) evaluations of health promotion and prevention measures for children and adolescents, especially on the practical importance, the determinants of project success, meaningful parameters for evaluations, and supporting factors, but also on problems in their implementation. This information is targeted at people responsible for the development of primary prevention or health promotion programs.MethodsPartially structured open interviews were conducted by two interviewers and transcribed, paraphrased, and summarized for further use. Eight experts took part in the interviews.ResultsThe interviewed experts saw evaluation as a useful tool to establish the effects of prevention programs, to inform program improvement and further development, and to provide arguments to decision making. The respondents’ thought that determinants of a program’s success were effectiveness with evidence of causality, cost benefit relation, target-group reach and sustainability. It was considered important that hard and soft factors were included in an evaluation; costs were mentioned only by one expert. According to the experts, obstacles to evaluation were lacking resources, additional labor requirements, and the evaluators’ unfamiliarity with a program’s contents. It was recommended to consider evaluation design before a program is launched, to co-operate with people involved in a program and to make use of existing structures.ConclusionWhile in in this study only a partial view of expert knowledge is represented, it could show important points to consider when developing evaluations of prevention programs. By considering these points, researchers could further advance towards a more comprehensive approach of evaluation targeting measures in children and adolescents.
The analysis provides a first estimate of the potential savings from an effective status specific prevention programme. However, the direct costs per patient used were only an average for all people with DM, as a breakdown by educational level was not available. Since education can also affect health behaviour and compliance, which are also determinants of cost, the analyses presented here are probably conservative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.