Economic evaluation of a web-based menu planning intervention to improve childcare service adherence with dietary guidelines.
Childhood obesity prevention
Cost-consequence
Dietary intervention
Economic evaluation
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2021
07 01 2021
Historique:
received:
24
06
2020
accepted:
01
12
2020
entrez:
8
1
2021
pubmed:
9
1
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial. The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money. Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of - $482 (95% UI - $859, - $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated. Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial.
METHODS
The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money.
RESULTS
Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of - $482 (95% UI - $859, - $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated.
CONCLUSION
Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33413491
doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01068-x
pii: 10.1186/s13012-020-01068-x
pmc: PMC7789335
doi:
Banques de données
ANZCTR
['ACTRN12616000974404']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1Références
J Am Diet Assoc. 2011 Sep;111(9):1343-62
pubmed: 21872698
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 11;7(9):e017498
pubmed: 28893755
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
Public Health. 2019 Apr;169:101-113
pubmed: 30877961
Health Econ. 2005 Aug;14(8):763-76
pubmed: 15729743
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Dec;32(12):1157-70
pubmed: 25069632
Maturitas. 2011 Nov;70(3):266-84
pubmed: 21920682
Value Health. 2007 Sep-Oct;10(5):336-47
pubmed: 17888098
Pediatr Obes. 2015 Dec;10(6):416-22
pubmed: 25612250
Pediatrics. 2014 May;133(5):854-62
pubmed: 24709935
Implement Sci. 2014 Dec 18;9:168
pubmed: 25518730
J Am Coll Nutr. 2002 Feb;21(1):62-71
pubmed: 11838889
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(1):37-46
pubmed: 16076237
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Jun;41(3):323-324
pubmed: 28110505
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2016 Jan;24(1):200-6
pubmed: 26638187
Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Jan 23;11:130184
pubmed: 24456645
Med Decis Making. 2008 Jan-Feb;28(1):21-32
pubmed: 18263559
Child Obes. 2012 Jun;8(3):216-23
pubmed: 22799547
Prev Med. 2017 Dec;105:197-205
pubmed: 28965755
Clin Med Rev Vasc Health. 2015 Aug 12;7:1-5
pubmed: 26312015
J Paediatr Child Health. 2019 Jul;55(7):802-808
pubmed: 30411424
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 04;10:CD011779
pubmed: 27699761
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Feb;21(3):607-617
pubmed: 29173218
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Jun;18(9):1610-9
pubmed: 24477181
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Jun;19(9):1531-42
pubmed: 26466671
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Feb 4;22(2):e13401
pubmed: 32014843
Health Econ. 2003 May;12(5):377-92
pubmed: 12720255
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Mar 14;9:104
pubmed: 29593658
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(6):519-28
pubmed: 19640014
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 10;14(7):e0219500
pubmed: 31291330
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Sep 13;13(9):
pubmed: 27649218
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2012;19(2):e234-8
pubmed: 22805014
Child Obes. 2020 Mar;16(2):70-85
pubmed: 31742427
Am J Health Promot. 2019 Sep;33(7):991-1001
pubmed: 30909715
Health Promot J Austr. 2020 Apr;31(2):216-223
pubmed: 31397031
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 17;5:CD008552
pubmed: 29770960
Fam Pract. 2000 Feb;17 Suppl 1:S26-31
pubmed: 10735265
Am J Health Promot. 2019 Mar;33(3):399-411
pubmed: 30004247
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Nov 19;14:118
pubmed: 25407057