Trial reportPloS one2025
Cost-effectiveness of the rural lifestyle eating and activity program (Rural LEAP).
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rural United States (U.S.) residents with obesity have unique challenges maintaining successful weight loss; tailored support resources such as individual behavioral coaching through telehealth are a cost-effective option. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of telephone-based individual coaching sessions for extended care after initial weight loss compared to an education-only control group. Trial data collected during a randomized trial conducted in rural counties in Florida from October 21, 2013, to December 21, 2018 informed the base case parameters. Using a program/participant perspective, cost-effectiveness was assessed for a 5-year time horizon using a discrete Markov model, with sensitivity analysis to test model assumptions. A 3% discount rate was used to value future time periods, and prices were inflated to 2024 values. Primary endpoints were the proportion of participants in each weight loss category, measured as a < 5%, 5-10%, or >10% reduction from baseline weight. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using program costs and participant-reported Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and health care costs. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the end of the trial and 5 years post-trial. Cost-effectiveness used a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Results identified that intervention with 18 individual telephone counseling sessions was more expensive than the education/control program to deliver ($555/participant vs. $27/participant) but also more effective (34.2% with at least 10% weight loss vs. 17.0% for control at the end of the intervention), with 6.4% of modeled participants expected to maintain at least 10% in baseline reduction at year 5, compared to 5.4% for controls. Intervention participants were predicted to have modestly lower out-of-pocket prescription and other medical costs compared to participants in the control group, which offset some of the incrementally higher coaching program costs. Predicted ICERs at 5 years ranged from $7,731 to $8,156 per QALY gained through the individual coaching program. Findings contribute to evidence needed to identify cost-effective strategies for long-term weight management and disease prevention for at-risk populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.