Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35426903›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of public health2022

Cost-effectiveness of a programme to address sedentary behaviour in older adults: results from the SITLESS RCT.

Manuela Deidda, Laura Coll-Planas, Mark A Tully, Maria Giné-Garriga, Frank Kee, Marta Roqué I Figuls, Nicole E Blackburn, Míriam Guerra-Balic, Dietrich Rothenbacher, Dhayana Dallmeier and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Manuela DeiddaHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health and Wellbeing (IHW), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0921-6970
Laura Coll-PlanasFundació Salut i Envelliment-UAB, Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB Sant Pau), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mark A TullyUniversity of Ulster, Coleraine, Londonderry, UK.
Maria Giné-GarrigaFacultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l'Educació i de l'Esport Blanquerna (Universitat Ramon Llull), Barcelona, Spain.
Frank KeeUKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Marta Roqué I FigulsFundació Salut i Envelliment-UAB, Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB Sant Pau), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Nicole E BlackburnUniversity of Ulster, Coleraine, Londonderry, UK.
Míriam Guerra-BalicFacultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l'Educació i de l'Esport Blanquerna (Universitat Ramon Llull), Barcelona, Spain.
Dietrich RothenbacherInstitute of Epidemiology and Medical Biometry, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3563-2791
Dhayana DallmeierUlm University, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Paolo CaserottiDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Syddansk Universitet, Odense M, Denmark.
Mathias SkjødtDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Syddansk Universitet, Odense M, Denmark.
Emma McIntoshHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), Institute of Health and Wellbeing (IHW), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
SITLESS Consortium
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversitat Ramon Llull · ESUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Ulster · GBQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study details the within-trial economic evaluation and long-term economic model of SITLESS, a multi-country, three-armed randomized controlled trial comparing a combined intervention of exercise referral schemes (ERS) enhanced by self-management strategies (SMS) against ERS alone and usual care (UC).

methodsA cost-utility analysis, conducted from the base-case perspective of the National Health Service and personal and social services, estimated the incremental cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and years in full capability (YFC). A secondary analysis combined the costs with a broad set of outcomes within a cost-consequence framework, from a societal perspective. A Markov-type decision-analytic model was developed to project short-term changes in physical activity to long-term outcomes and costs, over a 5- and 15-year time horizon.

resultsThe results of the within-trial analysis show that SMS+ERS is highly likely to be cost-effective compared to ERS alone (ICER €4270/QALY), but not compared to UC. Participants allocated to the SMS+ERS group also showed an improvement in YFC compared to ERS alone and UC. The long-term analysis revealed that SMS+ERS is likely to be a cost-effective option compared to ERS and UC over a 5-year, but not with a 15-year horizon, being then dominated by ERS alone.

conclusionThis research provides new evidence that SMS is a cost-effective add-on to ERS strategies. This economic evaluation informs the case for further, cost-effective, refinement of lifestyle change programmes targeted to older adults, with the aim of ultimately reducing the impact of non-communicable diseases in this population.

Indexed as

Sedentary BehaviorState MedicineAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisExerciseHumansQuality-Adjusted Life Years

Identifiers

PMID35426903
PMCPMC9159313
OpenAlexW4213236898

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.