4.7 Article

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a community weight management intervention: A randomized controlled trial of the health weight management demonstration

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 42-49

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.09.018

Keywords

Weight loss; Cost-effectiveness analysis; High blood pressure; Randomized clinical trial; Behavioral interventions; Physical activity; Dietary behavior; Obesity

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Defense, TRICARE [M94002-05-C-003, H94002-05-C-003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. The study investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral weight management program, complemented by an interactive Web site and brief telephone/e-mail coaching. Methods. In 2006-2007, 1755 overweight, non-active-duty TRICARE beneficiaries were randomized to one of three conditions with increasing intervention intensity: written materials and basic Web access (RCT1), plus an interactive Web site (RCT2), plus brief telephone/e-mail coaching support (RCT3). The study assessed changes in weight, blood pressure, and physical activity from baseline to 6,12, and 15-18 months. (Study retention was 31% at 12 months.) Average and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-offset analyses were conducted. Results. Participants experienced significant weight loss (-4.0%, -4.0%, and -53%, respectively, in each RCT group after 12 months and -3.5%, -3.8%, and -5.1%, respectively, after 15 to 18 months), increased physical activity, and decreased blood pressure. Cost-effectiveness ratios were $900 to $1100/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for RCT1 and RCT2 and $1900/QALY for RCT3. The cost recovery period to the government was 3 years for RCT's 1 and 2 and 6 years for RCT3. Conclusion. A relatively inexpensive cognitive-behavioral weight management intervention improved patient outcomes. Extrapolation of savings for the entire TRICARE population would significantly reduce direct medical costs. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available