Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32559212›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Priority-setting for obesity prevention-The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of obesity prevention policies in Australia (ACE-Obesity Policy) study.

Jaithri Ananthapavan, Gary Sacks, Vicki Brown, Marj Moodie, Phuong Nguyen, Lennert Veerman, Ana Maria Mantilla Herrera, Anita Lal, Anna Peeters, Rob Carter

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
24.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A systematic review of economic evidence for community-based obesity prevention interventions in children.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Modelling the potential health and economic benefits of reducing population sitting time in Australia.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Jaithri AnanthapavanDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5957-6931
Gary SacksGlobal Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Vicki BrownDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Marj MoodieDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Phuong NguyenDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Lennert VeermanSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3206-8232
Ana Maria Mantilla HerreraQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
Anita LalDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Anna PeetersGlobal Obesity Centre, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Rob CarterDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Deakin University · AUGriffith University · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the ACE-Obesity Policy study was to assess the economic credentials of a suite of obesity prevention policies across multiple sectors and areas of governance for the Australian setting. The study aimed to place the cost-effectiveness results within a broad decision-making context by providing an assessment of the key considerations for policy implementation. The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) approach to priority-setting was used. Systematic literature reviews were undertaken to assess the evidence of intervention effectiveness on body mass index and/or physical activity for selected interventions. A standardised evaluation framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each intervention compared to a 'no intervention' comparator, from a limited societal perspective. A multi-state life table Markov cohort model was used to estimate the long-term health impacts (quantified as health adjusted life years (HALYs)) and health care cost-savings resulting from each intervention. In addition to the technical cost-effectiveness results, qualitative assessments of implementation considerations were undertaken. All 16 interventions evaluated were found to be cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD50,000 per HALY gained). Eleven interventions were dominant (health promoting and cost-saving). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the non-dominant interventions ranged from AUD1,728 to 28,703 per HALY gained. Regulatory interventions tended to rank higher on their cost-effectiveness results, driven by lower implementation costs. However, the program-based policy interventions were generally based on higher quality evidence of intervention effectiveness. This comparative analysis of the economic credentials of obesity prevention policies for Australia indicates that there are a broad range of policies that are likely to be cost-effective, although policy options vary in strength of evidence for effectiveness, affordability, feasibility, acceptability to stakeholders, equity impact and sustainability. Implementation of these policies will require sustained co-ordination across jurisdictions and multiple government sectors in order to generate the predicted health benefits for the Australian population.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAustraliaHealth PolicyHumansMarkov ChainsObesityQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID32559212
PMCPMC7304600
OpenAlexW3036113449

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.