Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24736685›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2014

Economics of obesity--learning from the past to contribute to a better future.

Jaithri Ananthapavan, Gary Sacks, Marj Moodie, Rob Carter

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Health-Promoting Food Retail-Based Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Homeostatic theory of obesity.Health psychology open · 2015
    Article
  18. Review
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.

Jaithri AnanthapavanDeakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. jaithri.ananthapavan@deakin.edu.au.
Gary SacksWHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. gary.sacks@deakin.edu.au.
Marj MoodieDeakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. marj.moodie@deakin.edu.au.
Rob CarterDeakin Health Economics, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. rob.carter@deakin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discipline of economics plays a varied role in informing the understanding of the problem of obesity and the impact of different interventions aimed at addressing it. This paper discusses the causes of the obesity epidemic from an economics perspective, and outlines various justifications for government intervention in this area. The paper then focuses on the potential contribution of health economics in supporting resource allocation decision making for obesity prevention/treatment. Although economic evaluations of single interventions provide useful information, evaluations undertaken as part of a priority setting exercise provide the greatest scope for influencing decision making. A review of several priority setting examples in obesity prevention/treatment indicates that policy (as compared with program-based) interventions, targeted at prevention (as compared with treatment) and focused "upstream" on the food environment, are likely to be the most cost-effective options for change. However, in order to further support decision makers, several methodological advances are required. These include the incorporation of intervention costs/benefits outside the health sector, the addressing of equity impacts, and the increased engagement of decision makers in the priority setting process.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansObesity

Identifiers

PMID24736685
PMCPMC4025046

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.