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, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.</p>","PeriodicalId":94107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":"564-574"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-utility and cost consequence of a telehealth intervention targeting improvement in addictive eating for Australian adults (the TRACE program).\",\"authors\":\"Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pubmed/fdae273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Costs of each intervention (2021$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\":\"564-574\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638481/pdf/\",\"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
Quantitative analysis of 'virtual' SSP assessment clinics in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme in England. Effectiveness of text message reminder and motivational interview on adherence to methadone treatment in Vietnam: a randomized controlled trial. Implementing targeted vaccination activities to address inequalities in vaccination: a qualitative study. The politicization of influenza: partisan changes in flu vaccination before and after COVID-19. An application of matching algorithms to generalize small-area estimates of chronic pain prevalence to neighbourhoods across England.
×
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