Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31755043›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Physical Activity Interventions for Primary Prevention in Adults: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Economic Evaluations.

Renato Mattli, Renato Farcher, Maria-Eleni Syleouni, Simon Wieser, Nicole Probst-Hensch, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Matthias Schwenkglenks

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Behaviour change interventions to improve physical activity in adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Renato MattliInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland. renato.mattli@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8118-1776
Renato FarcherWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Maria-Eleni SyleouniWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Simon WieserWinterthur Institute of Health Economics, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Gertrudstrasse 15, 8401, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Nicole Probst-HenschSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4051, Basel, Switzerland.
Arno Schmidt-TrucksässDivision of Sports and Exercise Medicine, Department of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Basel, Mittlere Allee 18, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4662-3911
Matthias SchwenkglenksInstitute of Pharmaceutical Medicine (ECPM), University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 61, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
University of Basel · CHZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences · CHSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical inactivity is a worldwide pandemic associated with major chronic diseases. Given limited resources, policy makers are in need of physical activity interventions that provide best value for money.

objectiveTo summarize evidence from RCT-based economic evaluations of primary prevention physical activity interventions in adult populations outside the workplace setting.

designSystematic review of health economic evaluations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US$ per MET-hour gained were estimated on the basis of mean differences in intervention costs and standardized effects between intervention and control groups. DATA SOURCES: Identification of relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase and NHSEED). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Cost-effectiveness analyses in which all data (except unit costs) came from one RCT investigating physical activity interventions for primary prevention or health promotion in an adult population in high-income countries.

resultsIn twelve eligible studies, 22 interventions were investigated. Interventions were based on advice, goal setting and follow-up support, exercise classes, financial incentives or teaching on behavioral change. The ICER varied widely among the interventions and four interventions showed an ICER below the applied benchmark of US$0.44 to US$0.63 per MET-hour gained. These four interventions were based on individualized advice via print or web.

conclusionWe found evidence from RCTs indicating cost-effectiveness of some physical activity interventions for primary prevention in adults. However, the majority of interventions assessed would not be cost-effective according to the benchmark applied. Furthermore, our study showed that trial-based evidence on cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions is scarce. Therefore, we recommend that future studies investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of such interventions consider costs as an additional outcome and assess cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionPrimary PreventionAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31755043
OpenAlexW2990663730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.