以改善澳大利亚成年人饮食成瘾为目标的远程保健干预措施(TRACE 计划)的成本效用和成本后果。

Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows
{"title":"以改善澳大利亚成年人饮食成瘾为目标的远程保健干预措施(TRACE 计划)的成本效用和成本后果。","authors":"Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdae273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.</p>","PeriodicalId":94107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-utility and cost consequence of a telehealth intervention targeting improvement in addictive eating for Australian adults (the TRACE program).\",\"authors\":\"Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pubmed/fdae273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:一项为期 3 个月的随机对照试验对 TRACE(针对上瘾和强迫性进食的目标研究)干预措施进行了评估,结果表明,与被动组和对照组相比,由营养师主导的远程保健(主动干预)对耶鲁食物成瘾量表的评分有显著改善。本研究旨在确定干预成本和成本效用:计算每种干预措施的成本(2021 澳元)和增量净货币效益(iNMB;增量效益,定义为获得的质量调整生命年(QALY)乘以支付意愿阈值减去增量成本),以估计组间差异:结果:主动干预组(n = 38)的人均成本为 294 美元(95% 置信区间:266 美元至 316 美元),而被动干预组(n = 24)的人均成本为 47 美元(95% 置信区间:40 美元至 54 美元),对照组(n = 37)的人均成本为 26 美元。在每获得一个 QALY 分数的成本效益阈值为 50 000 美元时,主动干预 iNMB 为-186 美元(95% UI:-1137 美元,834 美元),被动干预组为 127 美元(95% UI:-1137 美元,834 美元)。与对照组相比,估算结果显示主动干预具有成本效益的几率为 30%,被动干预具有成本效益的几率为 60%:尽管主动干预的总体成本较低,但与被动干预相比,由于QALY得分的提高幅度较小,因此被认为不具有成本效益:试验注册:澳大利亚-新西兰临床试验注册中心 ACTRN12621001079831。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cost-utility and cost consequence of a telehealth intervention targeting improvement in addictive eating for Australian adults (the TRACE program).

Background: The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.

Methods: Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.

Results: The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.

Conclusion: Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.

Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Silent St. Louis encephalitis virus circulation evidence by a haemovigilance survey in a centralized blood bank. Correction to: When love hurts: emotional labor and hidden strains of intimate partner violence in toxic relationships. Prevalence trends of type 2 diabetes treatment, dyslipidemia and hepatic steatosis in Northeast Germany. Assessment of the link between life purpose and health. Sustainable menstrual solutions: a scoping review of novel eco-friendly materials for reusable menstrual pads.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1