Cost-effectiveness analysis of a multiple health behaviour change intervention in people aged between 45 and 75 years: a cluster randomized controlled trial in primary care (EIRA study).
Economic evaluation
Health promotion
Hybrid trial
Primary care
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 07 2021
02 07 2021
Historique:
received:
27
01
2021
accepted:
27
05
2021
entrez:
3
7
2021
pubmed:
4
7
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions that promote healthy lifestyles may be an efficient approach in the prevention or treatment of chronic diseases in primary care. This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the health promotion EIRA intervention in terms of MHBC and cardiovascular reduction. An economic evaluation alongside a 12-month cluster-randomised (1:1) controlled trial conducted between 2017 and 2018 in 25 primary healthcare centres from seven Spanish regions. The study took societal and healthcare provider perspectives. Patients included were between 45 and 75 years old and had any two of these three behaviours: smoking, insufficient physical activity or low adherence to Mediterranean dietary pattern. Intervention duration was 12 months and combined three action levels (individual, group and community). MHBC, defined as a change in at least two health risk behaviours, and cardiovascular risk (expressed in % points) were the outcomes used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Missing data was imputed and bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to handle uncertainty in the modelling results. The study included 3062 participants. Intervention costs were €295 higher than usual care costs. Five per-cent additional patients in the intervention group did a MHBC compared to usual care patients. Differences in QALYS or cardiovascular risk between-group were close to 0 (- 0.01 and 0.04 respectively). The ICER was €5598 per extra health behaviour change in one patient and €6926 per one-point reduction in cardiovascular risk from a societal perspective. The cost-utility analysis showed that the intervention increased costs and has no effect, in terms of QALYs, compared to usual care from a societal perspective. Cost-utility planes showed high uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. Sensitivity analysis showed results in line with the main analysis. The efficiency of EIRA intervention cannot be fully established and its recommendation should be conditioned by results on medium-long term effects. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03136211 . Registered 02 May 2017 - Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions that promote healthy lifestyles may be an efficient approach in the prevention or treatment of chronic diseases in primary care. This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of the health promotion EIRA intervention in terms of MHBC and cardiovascular reduction.
METHODS
An economic evaluation alongside a 12-month cluster-randomised (1:1) controlled trial conducted between 2017 and 2018 in 25 primary healthcare centres from seven Spanish regions. The study took societal and healthcare provider perspectives. Patients included were between 45 and 75 years old and had any two of these three behaviours: smoking, insufficient physical activity or low adherence to Mediterranean dietary pattern. Intervention duration was 12 months and combined three action levels (individual, group and community). MHBC, defined as a change in at least two health risk behaviours, and cardiovascular risk (expressed in % points) were the outcomes used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Missing data was imputed and bootstrapping with 1000 replications was used to handle uncertainty in the modelling results.
RESULTS
The study included 3062 participants. Intervention costs were €295 higher than usual care costs. Five per-cent additional patients in the intervention group did a MHBC compared to usual care patients. Differences in QALYS or cardiovascular risk between-group were close to 0 (- 0.01 and 0.04 respectively). The ICER was €5598 per extra health behaviour change in one patient and €6926 per one-point reduction in cardiovascular risk from a societal perspective. The cost-utility analysis showed that the intervention increased costs and has no effect, in terms of QALYs, compared to usual care from a societal perspective. Cost-utility planes showed high uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. Sensitivity analysis showed results in line with the main analysis.
CONCLUSION
The efficiency of EIRA intervention cannot be fully established and its recommendation should be conditioned by results on medium-long term effects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03136211 . Registered 02 May 2017 - Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34215275
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01144-5
pii: 10.1186/s12966-021-01144-5
pmc: PMC8254273
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03136211']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
88Références
Prev Med. 2017 Jun;99:49-57
pubmed: 28087465
BMC Med. 2018 Feb 23;16(1):28
pubmed: 29471877
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76 Suppl:S76-93
pubmed: 25572619
Med Clin (Barc). 2003 Oct 25;121(14):521-6
pubmed: 14599406
Health Econ. 2018 Apr;27(4):746-761
pubmed: 29282798
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2012;19(2):e234-8
pubmed: 22805014
Value Health. 2015 Dec;18(8):977-86
pubmed: 26686781
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 13;18(1):874
pubmed: 30005705
Health Expect. 2017 Oct;20(5):896-910
pubmed: 28116774
Aten Primaria. 2018 May;50 Suppl 1:29-40
pubmed: 29866355
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e89554
pubmed: 24586867
Aten Primaria. 2018 May;50 Suppl 1:41-65
pubmed: 29866358
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76 Suppl:S56-67
pubmed: 25263343
Prev Med. 2020 May;134:106067
pubmed: 32194097
Int J Equity Health. 2017 Jun 13;16(1):99
pubmed: 28610633
Aten Primaria. 2018 May;50 Suppl 1:66-82
pubmed: 29866359
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018 Mar 14;15(1):23
pubmed: 29540227
Aten Primaria. 2018 May;50 Suppl 1:83-108
pubmed: 29866360
BMC Public Health. 2021 Dec 4;21(1):2208
pubmed: 34863136
Ann Behav Med. 2009 Aug;38(1):40-5
pubmed: 19834778
Qual Life Res. 1998 May;7(4):311-22
pubmed: 9610215
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007 Jan;61(1):40-7
pubmed: 17183014
BMC Public Health. 2019 Apr 2;19(1):365
pubmed: 30940108
Am J Health Promot. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(1):38-48
pubmed: 10170434
Gac Sanit. 2021 Jan-Feb;35(1):48-59
pubmed: 31753510
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76 Suppl:S1-4
pubmed: 25778858
Prev Med. 2008 Mar;46(3):181-8
pubmed: 18319098
Pharmacoeconomics. 2019 May;37(5):631-643
pubmed: 30746613
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2003 Mar;56(3):253-61
pubmed: 12622955
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 Sep 03;7:64
pubmed: 20815869
BMC Public Health. 2014 May 29;14:530
pubmed: 24885174
BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 01;5(10):e008807
pubmed: 26428333
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76 Suppl:S94-104
pubmed: 25625691
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;5(2):145-154
pubmed: 29396118
J Public Health (Oxf). 2011 Dec;33(4):527-35
pubmed: 21562029
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Apr;50(7):408-17
pubmed: 26438429
Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):133-142
pubmed: 30522919
BMC Med. 2017 Dec 08;15(1):216
pubmed: 29221453
Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208
pubmed: 10109801
Aten Primaria. 2018 May;50 Suppl 1:4-28
pubmed: 29866357
PLoS One. 2015 May 04;10(5):e0125004
pubmed: 25938509
Health Syst Transit. 2018 May;20(2):1-179
pubmed: 30277216
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76 Suppl:S39-55
pubmed: 25524613