Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31307459›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of salt reformulation and increasing access to leisure centres in England, with PRIMEtime CE model validation using the AdViSHE tool.

Adam D M Briggs, Jane Wolstenholme, Peter Scarborough

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Adam D M BriggsCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. adam.briggs@dph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2314-1039
Jane WolstenholmeHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter ScarboroughCentre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Oxford, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/15/34/31656Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102730/Z/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPRIMEtime CE is a multistate life table model that can directly compare the cost effectiveness of public health interventions affecting diet and physical activity levels, helping to inform decisions about how to spend finite resources. This paper estimates the costs and health outcomes in England of two scenarios: reformulating salt and expanding subsidised access to leisure centres. The results are used to help validate PRIMEtime CE, following the steps outlined in the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) tool.

methodsThe PRIMEtime CE model estimates the difference in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and difference in NHS and social care costs of modelled interventions compared with doing nothing. The salt reformulation scenario models how salt consumption would change if food producers met the 2017 UK Food Standards Agency salt reformulation targets. The leisure centre scenario models change in physical activity levels if the Birmingham Be Active scheme (where swimming pools and gym access is free to residents during defined periods) was rolled out across England. The AdViSHE tool was developed by health economic modellers and divides model validation into five parts: validation of the conceptual model, input data validation, validation of computerised model, operational validation, and other validation techniques. PRIMEtime CE is discussed in relation to each part.

resultsSalt reformulation was dominant compared with doing nothing, and had a 10-year return on investment of £1.44 (£0.50 to £2.94) for every £1 spent. By contrast, over 10 years the Be Active expansion would cost £727,000 (£514,000 to £1,064,000) per QALY. PRIMEtime CE has good face validity of its conceptual model and has robust input data. Cross-validation produces mixed results and shows the impact of model scope, input parameters, and model structure on cost-per-QALY estimates.

conclusionsThis paper illustrates how PRIMEtime CE can be used to compare the cost-effectiveness of two different public health measures affecting diet and physical activity levels. The AdViSHE tool helps to validate PRIMEtime CE, identifies some of the key drivers of model estimates, and highlights the challenges of externally validating public health economic models against independent data.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandExerciseFemaleFoodHumansLeisure ActivitiesMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsPublic HealthSodium, DietaryDietEconomic modellingModellingNon-communicable diseasePhysical activityPublic healthPublic health economics

Identifiers

PMID31307459
PMCPMC6631881

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.