Cost-effectiveness of reducing children's sedentary time and increasing physical activity at school: the Transform-Us! intervention.

BACKGROUND: Improving physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior represent important areas for intervention in childhood in order to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to obesity and physical inactivity in later life. This paper aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a multi-arm primary school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in 8-9 year old children (Transform-Us!). METHODS: Modelled cost-utility analysis, using costs and effects from a cluster randomized controlled trial of a 30-month intervention that used pedagogical and environmental strategies to reduce and break up sedentary behaviour (SB-I), promote physical activity (PA-I), or a combined approach (PA + SB-I), compared to current practice. A validated multiple-cohort lifetable model (ACE-Obesity Policy model) estimated the obesity and physical activity-related health outcomes (measured as change in body mass index and change in metabolic equivalent task minutes respectively) and healthcare cost-savings over the cohort's lifetime from the public-payer perspective, assuming the intervention was delivered to all 8-9 year old children attending Australian Government primary schools. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on cost-effectiveness of varying key input parameters, including maintenance of intervention effect assumptions. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness results demonstrated that, when compared to control schools, the PA-I and SB-I intervention arms were "dominant", meaning that they resulted in net health benefits and healthcare cost-savings if the intervention effects were maintained. When the costs and effects of these intervention arms were extrapolated to the Australian population, results suggested significant potential as obesity prevention measures (PA-I: 60,780 HALYs saved (95% UI 15,007-109,413), healthcare cost-savings AUD641M (95% UI AUD165M-$1.1B); SB-I: 61,126 HALYs saved (95% UI 11,770 - 111,249), healthcare cost-savings AUD654M (95% UI AUD126M-1.2B)). The PA-I and SB-I interventions remained cost-effective in sensitivity analysis, assuming the full decay of intervention effect after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The PA-I and SB-I Transform-Us! intervention arms represent good value for money and could lead to health benefits and healthcare cost-savings arising from the prevention of chronic disease in later life if intervention effects are sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN83725066). Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN12609000715279).

What Interventions are Cost Effective in Reducing Violence Against Women? A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically summarise the recent literature on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions implemented to reduce violence against women (VAW) and decision frameworks guiding resource allocation. METHOD: A scoping review of scholarly and grey literature on the cost-effectiveness and/or resource allocation for interventions addressing intimate partner violence (IPV), dating violence and non-partner sexual violence perpetrated against women aged 15 years and over. All settings and contexts were eligible, with papers published in English between 2010 and March 2023 included. RESULTS: Nineteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria reporting the cost, cost savings and/or cost effectiveness of 24 interventions to prevent IPV and to a lesser extent, other forms of interpersonal violence. Among the 16 economic evaluation studies reviewed, four types of interventions were cost effective in multiple settings or studies, including community activism (Uganda, Ghana), gender transformative interventions with couples and individuals (Ethiopia, Rwanda), specific justice and law enforcement measures (USA) and a combined personnel training, support, and referral programme in General Practice in the UK. Other interventions were cost effective in a single study or had conflicting evidence. Three remaining papers conducted a partial evaluation or cost appraisal providing limited information on the cost or cost-savings of other implemented interventions. No frameworks on resource allocation for the prevention of VAW were identified. CONCLUSION: While there is some evidence of cost effectiveness emerging for interventions implemented in specific contexts, overall, we find the recent evidence on costs and cost effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of VAW to be limited. Embedding economic evaluation in future effectiveness trials will build critical evidence needed to inform policy and resource allocation decisions based on the value-for-money of interventions. Modelling the benefits and costs of interventions to better understand the societal impacts of programmes at scale is a further research opportunity.