Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program
Abstract Background Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2020-10-01
|
| Series: | BMC Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x |
| _version_ | 1818256228953882624 |
|---|---|
| author | Haiquan Xu Yanping Li Songming Du Qian Zhang Ailing Liu Junmao Sun Guansheng Ma |
| author_facet | Haiquan Xu Yanping Li Songming Du Qian Zhang Ailing Liu Junmao Sun Guansheng Ma |
| author_sort | Haiquan Xu |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial. Methods The standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost–utility ratio (CUR) and A cost–benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions. Results The CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). Conclusions Comprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T17:24:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-165c5104d0cd41dc8a55dd611a9c33b2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2458 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T17:24:26Z |
| publishDate | 2020-10-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Public Health |
| spelling | doaj.art-165c5104d0cd41dc8a55dd611a9c33b22022-12-22T00:17:33ZengBMCBMC Public Health1471-24582020-10-012011710.1186/s12889-020-09718-xCost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention programHaiquan Xu0Yanping Li1Songming Du2Qian Zhang3Ailing Liu4Junmao Sun5Guansheng Ma6Institute of Food and Nutrition Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural AffairsDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public HealthChinese Nutrition SocietyNational Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institute for Nutrition and Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and PreventionInstitute of Food and Nutrition Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural AffairsDepartment of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Peking UniversityAbstract Background Economic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost–utility and cost–benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial. Methods The standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost–utility ratio (CUR) and A cost–benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions. Results The CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). Conclusions Comprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-xChildhood obesitySchool-based interventionObesity interventionCost-utilityCost-benefit |
| spellingShingle | Haiquan Xu Yanping Li Songming Du Qian Zhang Ailing Liu Junmao Sun Guansheng Ma Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program BMC Public Health Childhood obesity School-based intervention Obesity intervention Cost-utility Cost-benefit |
| title | Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program |
| title_full | Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program |
| title_fullStr | Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program |
| title_short | Cost–utility and cost–benefit analyses of school-based obesity prevention program |
| title_sort | cost utility and cost benefit analyses of school based obesity prevention program |
| topic | Childhood obesity School-based intervention Obesity intervention Cost-utility Cost-benefit |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-09718-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT haiquanxu costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT yanpingli costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT songmingdu costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT qianzhang costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT ailingliu costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT junmaosun costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram AT guanshengma costutilityandcostbenefitanalysesofschoolbasedobesitypreventionprogram |