4.6 Article

A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-953

关键词

Physical activity; Cost effectiveness analysis; Financial incentives; Workplace intervention

资金

  1. HRB/HSC RAMP
  2. D/NCI Health Economics Fellowship
  3. National Prevention 384 Research Initiative (NPRI) [G0802045]
  4. Alzheimer's 385 Research Trust
  5. Alzheimer's Society
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  7. 386 British Heart Foundation
  8. Cancer Research UK
  9. Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government 387 Health Directorate
  10. Department of Health
  11. Diabetes UK
  12. Economic and Social Research 388 Council
  13. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  14. Health and Social Care Research 389 and Development Division of the Public Health Agency (HSC R D Division)
  15. Medical 390 Research Council
  16. The Stroke Association
  17. Welsh Assembly Government
  18. World Cancer 391 Research Fund
  19. Department for Employment and Learning, 392 Northern Ireland [M6003CPH]
  20. MRC [MR/K023241/1, G0802045] Funding Source: UKRI
  21. Medical Research Council [MR/K023241/1, G0802045] Funding Source: researchfish
  22. Public Health Agency [CDV/4259/10] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer's perspective. Methods: Employees used a `loyalty card' to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates. Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were epsilon 2,900/QALY and epsilon 2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer's perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable business model which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.

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

4.6
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