Cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: a systematic review of health economic studies.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2022
01 02 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
6
12
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
5
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the existing literature on cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes (ERSs). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Main inclusion criteria were: (1) insufficiently active people; (2) ERSs and (3) full health economic evaluations. No publication year limits were applied. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. Fifteen eligible publications were retrieved, presenting results of 12 different studies. Compared with usual care, ERSs were found to be cost-effective in a majority of the analyses, but with modest health gains and costs per individual. These cost-effectiveness results were also sensitive to small changes in input parameters. Two studies found that ERSs combined with a pedometer/accelerometer are cost-effective, compared with usual ERS practice. Two other studies found that an ERS with phone support and an ERS with face-to-face support might be equally effective, with similar costs. Although the literature demonstrated that ERSs could be cost-effective compared with usual care, these results were not robust. Based on a small number of studies, ERSs could be optimized by using tracking devices, or by providing a choice to the participants about the delivery mode. There is need for clarity on the effectiveness of and attendance to ERS, as more certainty about these key input parameters will strengthen health-economic evidence, and thus will allow to provide a clearer message to health policy-makers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the existing literature on cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes (ERSs).
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Main inclusion criteria were: (1) insufficiently active people; (2) ERSs and (3) full health economic evaluations. No publication year limits were applied. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist.
RESULTS
Fifteen eligible publications were retrieved, presenting results of 12 different studies. Compared with usual care, ERSs were found to be cost-effective in a majority of the analyses, but with modest health gains and costs per individual. These cost-effectiveness results were also sensitive to small changes in input parameters. Two studies found that ERSs combined with a pedometer/accelerometer are cost-effective, compared with usual ERS practice. Two other studies found that an ERS with phone support and an ERS with face-to-face support might be equally effective, with similar costs.
CONCLUSION
Although the literature demonstrated that ERSs could be cost-effective compared with usual care, these results were not robust. Based on a small number of studies, ERSs could be optimized by using tracking devices, or by providing a choice to the participants about the delivery mode. There is need for clarity on the effectiveness of and attendance to ERS, as more certainty about these key input parameters will strengthen health-economic evidence, and thus will allow to provide a clearer message to health policy-makers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34864937
pii: 6449411
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab189
pmc: PMC9090165
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87-94Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 23;17(15):
pubmed: 32717836
Sante Publique. 2014 Sep-Oct;26(5):647-54
pubmed: 25490224
Phys Sportsmed. 2015 Feb;43(1):22-6
pubmed: 25684558
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Mar;11(10):1-165, iii-iv
pubmed: 17313906
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Sep 14;5(9):
pubmed: 27628572
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Dec;16(6):705-721
pubmed: 27805466
Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jun;46(6):649-52
pubmed: 24842742
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2006 Jun;24(2):69-74
pubmed: 16690553
Prev Med. 2014 Jun;63:1-5
pubmed: 24607364
Health Technol Assess. 2011 Dec;15(44):i-xii, 1-254
pubmed: 22182828
Health Psychol Rev. 2016 Sep;10(3):297-312
pubmed: 26262912
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2015 Feb;29(1):120-30
pubmed: 26267006
BMC Public Health. 2008 Jul 08;8:231
pubmed: 18611277
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2015 Mar;38(1):23-38
pubmed: 25476753
Br J Gen Pract. 2011 Mar;61(584):e125-33
pubmed: 21375895
Lancet. 2016 Sep 24;388(10051):1311-24
pubmed: 27475266
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:7191826
pubmed: 28316986
Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):366-78
pubmed: 25739893
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Oct 01;8:201
pubmed: 18828898
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019 Jun;51(6):1270-1281
pubmed: 31095084
Psychol Health. 2011 Nov;26(11):1479-98
pubmed: 21678185
BMJ. 2011 Nov 04;343:d6462
pubmed: 22058134
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Dec;16(6):723-732
pubmed: 27762640
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):240-5
pubmed: 15921065
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019 May;29(5):638-650
pubmed: 30742334
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016 Dec;16(6):689-704
pubmed: 27805469
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275