Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30104307›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial.

Nishma Patel, Rebecca J Beeken, Baptiste Leurent, Rumana Z Omar, Irwin Nazareth, Stephen Morris

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nishma PatelDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Rebecca J BeekenDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Baptiste LeurentDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rumana Z OmarDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Irwin NazarethDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G080202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

designAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.

setting14 general practitioner practices in England.

participantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m OUTCOMES MEASURES: Health service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.

resultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of -£36 (95% CI -£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI -0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI -£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.

conclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

Indexed as

HabitsWeight Reduction ProgramsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life Yearscost-effectivenessprimary careweight loss programme

Identifiers

PMID30104307
PMCPMC6091904
OpenAlexW2885529716

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.