Efficiency of "Prescribe Vida Saludable", a health promotion innovation. Pilot phase / Eficiencia de «Prescribe Vida Saludable», una innovación de promoción de la salud. Fase piloto

Objective: "Prescribe Vida Saludable" (PVS) is an organisational innovation designed to optimise the promotion of multiple healthy habits in primary healthcare. It aims to estimate the cost effectiveness and cost-utility of prescribing physical activity in the pilot phase of the PVS programme, compared to the routine clinical practice of promoting physical activity in primary healthcare. Methods: An economic evaluation of the quasi-experimental pilot phase of PVS was carried out. In the four control centres, a systematic sample was selected of 194 patients who visited the centre in a single year and who did not comply with physical activity recommendations. In the four intervention centres, 122 patients who received their first physical activity prescription were consecutively enrolled. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the PVS programme using bottom-up methodology. The effectiveness (proportion of patients who changed their physical activity) as well as the utility were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and a sensitivity analysis was performed with bootstrapping and 1,000 replications. Results: Information was obtained from 35% of control cases and 62% of intervention cases. The ICUR was Euros1,234.66/Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and the ICER was Euros4.12. In 98.3% of the simulations, the ICUR was below the Euros30,000/QALY threshold. Conclusions: The prescription of physical activity was demonstrably within acceptable cost-utility limits in the pilot PVS phase, even from a conservative perspective (AU)

Objetivo: Prescribe Vida Saludable (PVS) es una innovación organizativa para optimizar la promoción de múltiples hábitos saludables en atención primaria. El objetivo es estimar el coste-efectividad y el coste-utilidad de la prescripción de actividad física en el pilotaje del programa PVS, respecto a la práctica clínica habitual de promoción de la actividad física en atención primaria. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo una evaluación económica del pilotaje cuasi experimental PVS. En los cuatro centros de control se seleccionó una muestra sistemática de 194 pacientes que visitaron el centro durante 1 año y que no cumplían las recomendaciones de actividad física. En los cuatro centros de intervención se captaron consecutivamente 122 pacientes que recibieron la primera prescripción de actividad física. Los costes se evaluaron desde la perspectiva del programa PVS con la metodología bottom-up. Tanto la efectividad (proporción de pacientes que modificaron su actividad física) como la utilidad fueron evaluadas basalmente y a los 3 meses. Se calcularon la razón de coste-utilidad incremental (RCUI) y la razón de coste-efectividad incremental (RCEI), y se realizó el análisis de sensibilidad con bootstrapping con 1000 repeticiones. Resultados: Se obtuvo información de un 35% de los casos control y de un 62% de los casos con intervención. La RCUI fue de 1234,66 Euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad (AVAC) y la RCEI fue de 4,12 Euros. En un 98,3% de las simulaciones el RCUI estuvo por debajo del umbral de 30.000 Euros/AVAC. Conclusiones: La prescripción de actividad física se muestra en unos límites aceptables de coste-utilidad en el pilotaje de PVS, incluso desde una perspectiva conservadora (AU)

Efficiency of "Prescribe Vida Saludable", a health promotion innovation. Pilot phase.

OBJECTIVE: "Prescribe Vida Saludable" (PVS) is an organisational innovation designed to optimise the promotion of multiple healthy habits in primary healthcare. It aims to estimate the cost effectiveness and cost-utility of prescribing physical activity in the pilot phase of the PVS programme, compared to the routine clinical practice of promoting physical activity in primary healthcare. METHODS: An economic evaluation of the quasi-experimental pilot phase of PVS was carried out. In the four control centres, a systematic sample was selected of 194 patients who visited the centre in a single year and who did not comply with physical activity recommendations. In the four intervention centres, 122 patients who received their first physical activity prescription were consecutively enrolled. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the PVS programme using bottom-up methodology. The effectiveness (proportion of patients who changed their physical activity) as well as the utility were evaluated at baseline and after 3 months. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and a sensitivity analysis was performed with bootstrapping and 1,000 replications. RESULTS: Information was obtained from 35% of control cases and 62% of intervention cases. The ICUR was €1,234.66/Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and the ICER was €4.12. In 98.3% of the simulations, the ICUR was below the €30,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The prescription of physical activity was demonstrably within acceptable cost-utility limits in the pilot PVS phase, even from a conservative perspective.