Table 2 Characteristics of included studies

Author Year Country Study quality	Objective economic perspective	Study type Economic analysis type	Intervention	Participants	Follow-up duration	Effectiveness established	Outcome
Author Year Country Study quality	Objective economic perspective	Study type Economic analysis type	Intervention	Participants	Follow-up duration	Effectiveness established	Incremental monthly intervention costs per participant	Annual costs per participant to become active†
Elley et al 2004New Zealand High	Primary care exercise counselling/prescription	RCT	Intervention (I): Green prescription, counselling in GP	Less active primary care patients (40–79 years)	12 months	Yes	6.7 €	825 € (Activity level: 5 × 30 minutes per week)
	Health funder’s and social perspective	CEA	Control (C): usual care	I: n = 451
				C: n = 427
				Groups comparable: Yes
Sevick et al 2007 USA High	Community-based	RCT	Intervention 1(I1): phone-delivered intervention messages	Sedentary adults (18–65 years)	12 months	Yes	I1: 64.0 €	I1: 3213 €
	Payer’s perspective	CEA	Intervention 2(I2): print material	I1: n = 80			I2: 32.4 €	I2: 773 € (Activity level: 5 × 30 minutes per week)
			Control (C): contact control	I2: n = 81
				C: n = 78
				Groups comparable: Yes
Sevick et al 2000 USA Good	Community-based	RCT	Lifestyle (I1): centre-based behavioural skill training	Less active adults (35–60 years)	24 months	Limited (no-intervention control group not available but compared with baseline)	I1: 18.7 €	I1: 1962 €
	Payer’s perspective	CEA	Standard (I2): centre-based supervised exercise training	n = 235			I2: 53.7 €	I2: 3924 € (Activity level: 5 × 30 minutes per week)
				Groups comparable: n.a.
Stevens et al 1998 UK Good	Primary care-based	RCT	Intervention (I): PA consultation with exercise development officer	Less active adults (45–74 years)	8 months	Yes	11.8 €	5358 € (Activity level: 5 × 30 minutes per week)
	Payer’s perspective	CEA	Control (C): mailed information package	I: n = 363
				C: n = 351
				Groups comparable: Yes
Proper et al 2004 Netherlands Good	Worksite physical activity counselling	RCT	Intervention (I): seven counselling sessions over 9 months	Civil servants‡ (mean age: 44 years)	9 months	Limited (variable effectiveness over different outcome measures)	33.9 €	No significant effect difference between groups observed regarding the activity level: ⩾5 × 30 minutes per week
	Company perspective	CBE	Control (C): no intervention	I: n = 131
		CEA		C: n = 168
				Groups comparable: No
Dzator et al 2004 Australia Fair	Physical activity/nutrition programme in community setting	RCT	Intervention 1 (I1): high-level, interactive intervention	Couples‡ (mean age: 28–31 years)	12 months	Limited (internal validity, costing and the role of control group questionable)	I1: −0.1 €	No significant effect difference between groups observed regarding the activity level: exercise days per week
	Direct programme costs	CEA	Intervention 2 (I2): low-level, mailed intervention material	I1: n = 47			I2: −0.2 €
			Control (C): no intervention	I2: n = 47
				C: n = 43
				Groups comparable: No
Wang et al 2004 USA Fair	Trail development	Cross-sectional	Intervention: development of four trails	3986 trail users	Time horizon: 12 months	Limited (no control group)	5.4 € (assumption regarding trail usability: 30 years)	more active: 87 €
	Payer’s perspective	CEA						more active for health: 126 €
								More active for weight loss: 790 € (activity level: personal appraisal by trail users in interviews)
Sims et al 2004 Australia Fair	Primary care-based	RCT-based economic modelling	Active script programme (I): improving systematic PA advice by GPs	670 GPs advising sedentary patients	–	Limited (uptake assumption of GP advice to become active questionable)	–	106.3 € (limited by unclear time horizon) (Activity level: >3300 kJ expended per week)
	Health service’s perspective	CEA	Control (C): usual care	Groups comparable:
		CUA		–

*Compared with control group (if no controls available, compared with alternative “no intervention”)
†As defined in the study (activity measure)
‡Variable proportion of participants reported as sufficiently active at baseline
CBA, cost benefit analysis; CEA, cost effectiveness analysis; CUA, cost utility analysis; GP, general practitioner; n.a., not available; PA, physical activity; RCT, randomised controlled trial.