Research articleEconomic Analysis of Physical Activity Interventions
Introduction
Regular physical activity has positive effects on both physical and mental health,1, 2 and numerous interventions have successfully increased physical activity. Yet differences in both the types of interventions and how they are measured make comparisons difficult. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could aid decision makers in allocating resources efficiently3 through synthesizing information about the effectiveness, costs, and benefits of interventions. Of course, decision makers have to take other criteria into account, such as the distribution of benefits and costs, perceptions of fairness, and political support,4 but choosing the most cost-effective interventions maximizes the total benefits of limited resources.
A small number of physical activity interventions have been evaluated from a cost-effectiveness perspective, but in isolation and generally not in a way that allows comparisons across studies. One reason is that the relationship between physical activity interventions and long-run outcomes remains fairly speculative, and seemingly minor changes in assumptions (such as how physical activity effects are sustained over time) have a larger impact on cost-effectiveness estimates than the intervention itself. No study so far has compared the cost effectiveness of dozens of effective physical activity interventions now published and recommended for general use.5
Ideally, CEA follows the reference case of the U.S. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine,6 which uses a nonspecific health outcome (quality-adjusted life-years, or QALYs), takes a social perspective on costs to include all costs (including the opportunity costs of participants), and discounts long-run costs and outcomes. At this point, this may be too demanding for physical activity interventions, partly because relating changes in physical activity resulting from an intervention to QALYs involves assumptions about health benefits and partly because important short-term benefits (such as mood improvement or decrease in musculoskeletal complaints7, 8) are often not adequately captured in standard QALY methodology.
In this paper, therefore, a less ambitious approach is taken by using an outcome that is specific to physical activity, namely the quantity of physical activity produced among the population reached, measured in MET-hours. Similarly, costs are limited to actual intervention costs, which leaves out the more speculative (although not necessarily unimportant) effects of the intervention on healthcare costs, productivity, or participants' opportunity costs. This approach allows us to compare a larger set of physical activity interventions, even though it does not allow comparisons to other types of interventions like smoking cessation. To provide a benchmark, a crude calculation was used based on the estimated medical costs of inactivity.9, 10 In that case, any intervention with a cost-effectiveness ratio below this benchmark may actually be cost-saving.
Section snippets
Methods
Both existing systematic reviews were used and a public database search was conducted to retrieve candidate studies for inclusion. All interventions listed in two systematic reviews were selected: Kahn et al.5 and van Sluijs et al.11 A systematic literature search was then carried out using seven databases (MEDLINE, Sportdiscus, PsycINFO, Transportation Research Information Services, Enviroline, Sociological Abstracts, and Socio Sci Search) and included interventions published between 2000 and
Results
Figure 1 provides a flow chart of the systematic literature review. A total of 91 studies with 141 intervention arms were identified meeting the current inclusion criteria (1.6% of articles screened). Many studies that were excluded did not specify either the intensity or duration of the activity gained, but offered outcomes like an increased frequency of activity only. Of the included studies, 48 used RCT or controlled trial study design. Although the primary goal of 81 interventions was to
Discussion
The most cost-effective interventions provide the highest benefit for each dollar invested, which in some cases might lead to overall savings from a societal perspective. In the present study, the most cost-effective interventions reached a large number of people with low-intensity (and low-cost) efforts. Interventions like stair-climbing prompts may be extremely cost effective, but because they increase physical activity by only a minuscule amount, they alone could not greatly increase the
Recommendations for Evaluating Future Physical Activity Interventions
Future interventions to promote physical activity should take care to report resources utilized and costs. They should also measure the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity gained, so that their costs and effectiveness can be ranked against other interventions to help better inform public health policies. Many studies in the current review had relatively small samples. Future studies should have sufficient sample sizes (statistical power) to reliably detect more realistic
References (41)
- et al.
The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activityA systematic review
Am J Prev Med
(2002) - et al.
Cost effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions
Am J Prev Med
(2008) - et al.
Promotion of physical activity in low-income mothers using pedometers
J Am Diet Assoc
(2007) - et al.
The effect of a primary care exercise intervention for rural women
Prev Med
(2007) - et al.
The effect of multicolor playground markings on children's physical activity level during recess
Prev Med
(2005) - et al.
Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: a randomized controlled trial in middle schools
Am J Prev Med
(2003) - et al.
A randomized intervention of physical activity promotion and patient self-monitoring in primary health care
Prev Med
(2006) - et al.
Impact of lifestyle intervention on physical activity and diet of Japanese workers
Prev Med
(2007) - et al.
Acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention in adolescents
Patient Educ Couns
(2007) - et al.
School physical education: effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health
Prev Med
(1996)
Physical activity in the U.S. measured by accelerometer
Med Sci Sports Exerc
Healthy People
Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation
Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for U.S. public health policy
Annu Rev Public Health
Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine
Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General: USDHHS
Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence
CMAJ
Economic costs of obesity and inactivity
Med Sci Sports Exerc
Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials
Br J Sports Med
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Health Technol Assess
Cited by (130)
Non-exercise estimated cardiorespiratory fitness and cancer incidence: The NIH-AARP diet and health study
2023, Journal of Sport and Health ScienceGPS-based built environment measures associated with adult physical activity
2021, Health and PlaceEconomic evaluations of public health interventions for physical activity and healthy diet: A systematic review
2020, Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :Likewise, some international systematic reviews of economic evaluations of public health interventions for increasing physical activity and healthy diet found the majority of interventions to be cost-effective (Flego et al., 2014a; White et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2011a; Garrett et al., 2011). However, these studies reported variations in qualities of the available economic evaluations and limitations in transferring findings across contexts (Flego et al., 2014a; White et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2011a; Garrett et al., 2011). Moreover, economic evaluations are context sensitive and transferability of results is affected by factors including methodological (perspective, costing approach etc.), health systems (variation in price, practice, accessibility, technology) and population (disease incidence/prevalence, case mix, life expectancy, and health status preferences) (Welte et al., 2004).
This activity is available for CME credit. See page A4 for information