Cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes enhanced by self-management strategies to battle sedentary behaviour in older adults: protocol for an economic evaluation alongside the SITLESS three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Abstract

IntroductionPromoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change.Methods and analysisA within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis.The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states.Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective.Ethics and disseminationThe study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen’s University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study.This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This art...

Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature

“…Furthermore, ongoing research and developments could not be included which could be important in such a dynamically moving area. For example, we found information about ongoing economic evaluations [41,42,114] with the identified instruments where results expected to be published soon, additional capability instruments might have been used in unpublished economic evaluations, or some are currently under development. There is a potential need to update this literature review in the future to gather information from this rapidly growing body of literature about the potential development of additional capability measures, the further validation of existing ones, the empirical use of capability measures in economic evaluations, and the lessons learned from these applications.…”

“…The number of economic evaluations reporting the use of a capability instrument has increased in recent years and further increases can be expected given that this search identified a number of recent study protocols (e.g. [41,42,114]). Four further studies were identified that specifically addressed the issues and discussed considerations when incorporating the capability approach into health-related economic evaluations.…”

Relationship between patient activation measurement and self-rated health in patients with chronic diseases

“…Patient engagement and patient activation are major focuses of health policy efforts [ 4 – 6 ]. A large proportion of chronic diseases, for example hypertension, ischemic heart disease and diabetes, requires the patient to take active actions daily, called self-care [ 7 – 10 ].…”

Adding web-based behavioural support to exercise referral schemes for inactive adults with chronic health conditions: the e-coachER RCT

“…We are aware of an ongoing multicountry, multicentre RCT examining the cost-effectiveness of enhanced ERSs plus self-management strategies compared with ERS alone among inactive patients. 73 This chapter addresses the gaps in the literature by estimating the cost-effectiveness of e-coachER compared with ERSs alone, in adults with range of chronic conditions. The analysis uses a 1-year time horizon (from baseline to 12 months post randomisation) and is conducted from the viewpoint of the NHS, Personal Social Services and patients.…”