Are physical activity interventions in primary care and the community cost-effective? A systematic review of the evidence
Top Cited Papers
- 1 March 2011
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Royal College of General Practitioners in British Journal of General Practice
- Vol. 61 (584), e125-e133
- https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11x561249
Abstract
The health and economic burden of physical inactivity is well documented. A wide range of primary care and community-based interventions are available to increase physical activity. It is important to identify which components of these interventions provide the best value for money. To assess the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in primary care and the community. Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies based on randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase adult physical activity that were based in primary health care or the community, completed between 2002 and 2009. Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Results and study quality were assessed by two researchers, using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness ratios for moving one person from inactive to active, and cost-utility ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) were compared between interventions. Thirteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eight studies were of good or excellent quality. Interventions, study populations, and study designs were heterogeneous, making comparisons difficult. The cost to move one person to the 'active' category at 12 months was estimated for four interventions ranging from €331 to €3673. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies, and varied from €348 to €86,877 per QALY. Most interventions to increase physical activity were cost-effective, especially where direct supervision or instruction was not required. Walking, exercise groups, or brief exercise advice on prescription delivered in person, or by phone or mail appeared to be more cost-effective than supervised gym-based exercise classes or instructor-led walking programmes. Many physical activity interventions had similar cost-utility estimates to funded pharmaceutical interventions and should be considered for funding at a similar level.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cost Effectiveness of Community-Based Physical Activity InterventionsAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2008
- Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain: economic evaluationBMJ, 2008
- Cost-Effectiveness of Automated Telephone Self-Management Support With Nurse Care Management Among Patients With DiabetesAnnals of Family Medicine, 2008
- Cost-utility of a walking programme for moderately depressed, obese, or overweight elderly women in primary care: a randomised controlled trialBMC Public Health, 2008
- Economic evaluation of a rehabilitation program integrating exercise, self‐management, and active coping strategies for chronic knee painArthritis Care & Research, 2007
- Cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches for motivating activity in sedentary adults: Results of Project STRIDEPreventive Medicine, 2007
- Cost‐Effectiveness of Diabetes Case Management for Low‐Income PopulationsHealth Services Research, 2007
- Exercise on prescription in general practice: A systematic reviewScandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 2006
- United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary careBMJ, 2004
- Cost-effectiveness of a primary care based physical activity intervention in 45-74 year old men and women: a randomised controlled trialBritish Journal of Sports Medicine, 1998