ArticlePreventive medicine reports2015
How much will we pay to increase steps per day? Examining the cost-effectiveness of a pedometer-based lifestyle program in primary care.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Do physical activity interventions combining self-monitoring with other components provide an additional benefit compared with self-monitoring alone? A systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of physical activity interventions for type 2 diabetes management: a systematic review.European journal of public health · 2022Pooled it
- How much does it cost to implement a community-based walking football programme for patients with type 2 diabetes?BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2023Article
- Addressing the gaps in diabetes care in first nations communities with the reorganizing the approach to diabetes through the application of registries (RADAR): the project protocol.BMC health services research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We previously demonstrated the Healthy Eating and Active Living for Diabetes (HEALD) intervention was effective for increasing daily steps. Here, we consider the cost-effectiveness of the HEALD intervention implemented in primary care. HEALD was a pedometer-based program for adults with type-2 diabetes in Alberta, Canada completed between January 2010 and September 2012. The main outcome was the change in pedometer-determined steps/day compared to usual care. We estimated total costs per participant for HEALD, and total costs of health care utilization through linkage with administrative health databases. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated with regression models for differences in costs and effects between study groups. The HEALD intervention cost $340 per participant over the 6-month follow-up. The difference in total costs (intervention plus health care utilization) was $102 greater per HEALD participant compared to usual care. The intervention group increased their physical activity by 918 steps/day [95% CI 116, 1666] compared to usual care. The resulting ICER was $111 per 1000 steps/day, less than an estimated cost-effectiveness threshold. Increasing daily steps through an Exercise Specialist-led group program in primary care may be a cost-effective approach towards improving daily physical activity among adults with type-2 diabetes. Alternative delivery strategies may be considered to improve the affordability of this model for primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.