4.7 Article

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

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 42-49

出版社

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

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据