Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24482061›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2014

Social and material deprivation and the cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote physical activity: cohort study and Markov model.

Martin Gulliford, Judith Charlton, Nawaraj Bhattarai, Caroline Rudisill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Martin GullifordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Judith CharltonDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Nawaraj BhattaraiDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Caroline RudisillDepartment of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council G0900845
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe developed a method to model the cost-effectiveness at different levels of deprivation of an intervention to promote physical activity.

methodsThe cost-effectiveness of a brief intervention in primary care was estimated by means of a Markov model stratified by deprivation quintile. Estimates for disease incidence, mortality, depression prevalence and health service utilization were obtained from 282 887 participants in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linked deprivation scores. Discounted results were compared for least deprived and most deprived quintiles.

resultsAn effective intervention to promote physical activity continuing for 5 years gave an increase in life years free from disease: least deprived 54.9 (95% interval 17.5-93.5) per 1000 participants entering model; most deprived 74.5 (22.8-128.0) per 1000. The overall incremental quality adjusted life years were: least deprived, 3.7 per 1000 and most deprived, 6.1 per 1000 with probability cost-effective at £30 000 per QALY being 52.5 and 63.3%, respectively. When the intervention was modelled to be 30% less effective in the most deprived than the least deprived quintile, the probability cost-effective was least deprived 52.9% and most deprived 55.9%.

conclusionPhysical activity interventions may generate greater health benefits in deprived populations. When intervention effectiveness is attenuated in deprived groups, cost-effectiveness may sometimes still be similar to that in the most affluent groups. Even with favourable assumptions, evidence was insufficient to support wider use of presently available brief primary care interventions in a universal strategy for primary prevention.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth PromotionMotor ActivityAdultCardiovascular DiseasesChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisCultural DeprivationDiabetes MellitusFemaleHealth SurveysHexamethoniumHumansMaleMarkov ChainsHexamethoniumbrief interventioneconomic evaluationhealth inequalityphysical activityprimary caresocioeconomic position

Identifiers

PMID24482061
PMCPMC4245899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.