Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37221341›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2023

Modelled Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Childhood Obesity Interventions: A Demonstration.

Anagha Killedar, Thomas Lung, Rachael W Taylor, Alison Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Anagha KilledarMenzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. anagha.killedar@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2363-8827
Thomas LungThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2042, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9978-6311
Rachael W TaylorDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Alison HayesSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8679-6040

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1101675National Health and Medical Research Council APP1141392National Health and Medical Research Council APP1169039National Heart Foundation of Australia 101956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo demonstrate how distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood obesity interventions could be conducted and presented for decision makers.

methodsWe conducted modelled distributional cost-effectiveness analyses of three obesity interventions in children: an infant sleep intervention (POI-Sleep), a combined infant sleep, food, activity and breastfeeding intervention (POI-Combo) and a clinician-led treatment for primary school-aged children with overweight and obesity (High Five for Kids). For each intervention, costs and socioeconomic position (SEP)-specific effect sizes were applied to an Australian child cohort (n = 4898). Using a purpose-built microsimulation model we simulated SEP-specific body mass index (BMI) trajectories, healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from age 4 to 17 years for control and intervention cohorts. We examined the distribution of each health outcome across SEP and determined the net health benefit and equity impact accounting for opportunity costs and uncertainty due to individual-level heterogeneity. Finally, we conducted scenario analyses to test the effect of assumptions about health system marginal productivity, the distribution of opportunity costs and SEP-specific effect sizes. The results of the primary analyses, uncertainty analyses and scenario analyses were presented on an efficiency-equity impact plane.

resultsAccounting for uncertainty, POI-Sleep and High Five for Kids were found to be 'win-win' interventions, with a 67% and 100% probability, respectively, of generating a net health benefit and positive equity impact compared with control. POI-Combo was found to be a 'lose-lose' intervention, with a 91% probability of producing a net health loss and a negative equity impact compared with control. Scenario analyses indicated that SEP-specific effect sizes were highly influential on equity impact estimates for POI-Combo and High Five for Kids, while health system marginal productivity and opportunity cost distribution assumptions primarily influenced the net health benefit and equity impact of POI-Combo.

conclusionsThese analyses demonstrated that distributional cost-effectiveness analyses using a fit-for-purpose model are appropriate for differentiating and communicating the efficiency and equity impacts of childhood obesity interventions.

Indexed as

Pediatric ObesityAdolescentAustraliaBody Mass IndexChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

PMID37221341
PMCPMC10232580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.