Home Gardening of Yellow Cassava and Orange Maize for the Prevention of Nutritional Blindness in Children: An Economic Evaluation and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of childhood blindness worldwide, affecting mostly Sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to predict the cost-effectiveness of home gardening (HG) of yellow cassava and orange maize to prevent nutritional blindness in children below 5 years and to assess the likely value of obtaining additional information in reducing uncertainty surrounding its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a Markov model and carried out probabilistic sensitivity analysis with a value of information analysis. We costed resources from a societal perspective and outcomes were measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). RESULTS: HG was estimated to cost an additional Intl$395.00 per DALY averted, with a 72.27% likelihood of being cost-effective at a threshold of Intl$2800 per DALY. The expected value of information was estimated to be Intl$29 843.50 for 1 child or Intl$925 billion for 31 million Nigerian children affected by the decision. Further research is only worthwhile for 1 parameter (relative risk of low serum retinol; expected value of perfect parameter information Intl$29 854.53 per child and Intl$925 billion for 31 million children). CONCLUSION: HG of yellow cassava and orange maize is expected to be highly cost-effective in preventing nutritional blindness in Nigerian children. Worthwhile further research includes a cost analysis of the intervention and a high-quality randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of HG on serum retinol levels in young children.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of an Ambient Intelligent Geriatric Management (AmbIGeM) System Compared to Usual Care to Prevent Falls in Older People in Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Ambient Intelligent Geriatric Management (AmbIGeM) system combines wearable sensors with artificial intelligence to trigger alerts to hospital staff before a fall. A clinical trial found no effect across a heterogenous population, but reported a reduction in the injurious falls rate in a post hoc analysis of patients on Geriatric Evaluation Management Unit (GEMU) wards. Cost-effectiveness and Value of Information (VoI) analyses of the AmbIGeM system in GEMU wards was undertaken. METHODS: An Australian health-care system perspective and 5-year time horizon were used for the cost-effectiveness analysis. Implementation costs, inpatient costs and falls data were collected. Injurious falls were defined as causing bruising, laceration, fracture, loss of consciousness, or if the patient reported persistent pain. To compare costs and outcomes, generalised linear regression models were used to adjust for baseline differences between the intervention and usual care groups. Bootstrapping was used to represent uncertainty. For the VoI analysis, 10,000 different sample sizes with randomly sampled values ranging from 1 to 50,000 were tested to estimate the optimal sample size of a new trial that maximised the Expected Net Benefits of Sampling. RESULTS: An adjusted 0.036 fewer injurious falls (adjusted rate ratio of 0.56) and AUD$4554 lower costs were seen in the intervention group. However, uncertainty that the intervention is cost effective for the prevention of an injurious fall was present at all monetary values of this effectiveness outcome. A new trial with a sample of 4376 patients was estimated to maximise the Expected Net Benefit of Sampling, generating a net benefit of AUD$186,632 at a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.1. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits to cost ratio suggests that a new trial of the AmbIGeM system in GEMU wards may not be high-value compared to other potential trials, and that the system should be implemented. However, a broader analysis of options for preventing falls in GEMU is required to fully inform decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN 12617000981325).

Value of Information Analysis in Models to Inform Health Policy.

Value of information (VoI) is a decision-theoretic approach to estimating the expected benefits from collecting further information of different kinds, in scientific problems based on combining one or more sources of data. VoI methods can assess the sensitivity of models to different sources of uncertainty and help to set priorities for further data collection. They have been widely applied in healthcare policy making, but the ideas are general to a range of evidence synthesis and decision problems. This article gives a broad overview of VoI methods, explaining the principles behind them, the range of problems that can be tackled with them, and how they can be implemented, and discusses the ongoing challenges in the area.

Methodological Note: Reporting Deterministic versus Probabilistic Results of Markov, Partitioned Survival and Other Non-Linear Models.

When making decisions under uncertainty, it is reasonable to choose the path that leads to the highest expected net benefit. Therefore, to inform decision making, decision-model-based health economic evaluations should always present expected outputs (i.e. the mean costs and outcomes associated with each course of action). In non-linear models such as Markov models, a single 'run' of the model with each input at its mean (a deterministic analysis) will not generate the expected value of the outputs. In a worst-case scenario, presenting deterministic analyses as the base case can lead to misleading recommendations. Therefore, the base-case analysis of a non-linear model should always be the means from a probabilistic analysis. In this paper, I explain why this is the case and provide recommendations for reporting economic evaluations based on Markov models, noting that the same principle applies to other non-linear structures such as partitioned survival models and individual sampling models. I also provide recommendations for conducting one-way sensitivity analyses of such models. Code illustrating the examples is provided in both Microsoft Excel and R, along with a video abstract and user guides in the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary file 6 (MP4 20900 kb).

Economic Evaluation of Transperineal versus Transrectal Devices for Local Anaesthetic Prostate Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Biopsy of the prostate for suspected cancer is usually performed transrectally under local anaesthesia in the outpatient clinic setting. As this involves piercing the bowel wall, the procedure is associated with a risk of infection. Recently, devices that facilitate transperineal biopsy approaches have been developed that avoid piercing the bowel and so should reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of transperineal versus transrectal ultrasound-guided local anaesthesia procedures for prostate biopsy from the perspective of the UK NHS and to estimate the value of further research in the area. METHODS: a) Decision tree and Markov model synthesising all relevant evidence estimating the life-time costs and QALYs accrued from each biopsy mode. b) Value of information analysis to predict the return from further research and thus guide future research efforts. RESULTS: Transperineal biopsy yields an ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained at a per-procedure device acquisition cost below £81, or £41 for cost-neutrality. These results are driven by differences in consumables cost, reduced cost of treating infections, and QALY gains associated with reduced infections. There is value in future research on the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsies and the incidence of iatrogenic infection and sepsis; consideration should be given to enriching the patient population with men with intermediate-risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: Transperineal biopsy devices may be cost effective compared with transrectal biopsy at per-procedure acquisition costs below £81 and cost-neutral if under £41. Future research is required to confirm or refute these findings, particularly randomised comparisons of the diagnostic accuracy and infection risks between the methods.

Late Pregnancy Ultrasound to Screen for and Manage Potential Birth Complications in Nulliparous Women: A Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction is a major risk factor for stillbirth. A routine late-pregnancy ultrasound scan could help detect this, allowing intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth. Such a scan could also detect fetal presentation and predict macrosomia. A trial powered to detect stillbirth differences would be extremely large and expensive. OBJECTIVES: It is therefore critical to know whether this would be a good investment of public research funds. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various late-pregnancy screening and management strategies based on current information and predict the return on investment from further research. METHODS: Synthesis of current evidence structured into a decision model reporting expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and net benefit over 20 years and value-of-information analysis reporting predicted return on investment from future clinical trials. RESULTS: Given a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the most cost-effective strategy is a routine presentation-only scan for all women. Universal ultrasound screening for fetal size is unlikely to be cost-effective. Research exploring the cost implications of induction of labor has the greatest predicted return on investment. A randomized, controlled trial with an endpoint of stillbirth is extremely unlikely to be a value for money investment. CONCLUSION: Given current value-for-money thresholds in the United Kingdom, the most cost-effective strategy is to offer all pregnant women a presentation-only scan in late pregnancy. A randomized, controlled trial of screening and intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth following universal ultrasound to detect macrosomia or fetal growth restriction is unlikely to represent a value for money investment.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

The school policy, social, and physical environment and change in adolescent physical activity: An exploratory analysis using the LASSO.

PURPOSE: We examined the association between the school policy, social and physical environment and change in adolescent physical activity (PA) and explored how sex and socioeconomic status modified potential associations. METHODS: Data from the GoActive study were used for these analyses. Participants were adolescents (n = 1765, mean age±SD 13.2±0.4y) from the East of England, UK. Change in longitudinal accelerometer assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was the outcome. School policy, social and physical environment features (n = 267) were exposures. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator variable selection method (LASSO) was used to determine exposures most relevant to the outcome. Exposures selected by the LASSO were added to a multiple linear regression model with estimates of change in min/day of MVPA per 1-unit change in each exposure reported. Post-hoc analyses, exploring associations between change in variables selected by the LASSO and change in MVPA, were undertaken to further explain findings. FINDINGS: No school policy or physical environment features were selected by the LASSO as predictors of change in MVPA. The LASSO selected two school social environment variables (participants asking a friend to do physical activity; friend asking a participant to do physical activity) as potential predictors of change in MVPA but no significant associations were found in subsequent linear regression models for all participants (ß [95%CI] -1.01 [-2.73;0.71] and 0.65 [-2.17;0.87] min/day respectively). In the post-hoc analyses, for every unit increase in change in participants asking a friend to do PA and change in a friend asking participants to do PA, an increase in MVPA of 2.78 (1.55;4.02) and 1.80 (0.48;3.11) min/day was predicted respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The school social environment is associated with PA during adolescence. Further exploration of how friendships during adolescence may be leveraged to support effective PA promotion in schools is warranted.

Economic evaluation of patient direct access to NHS physiotherapy services.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to undertake an economic evaluation of patient direct access to physiotherapy in the UK NHS by comparing the number of patients treated, waiting time, cost and health gain from a direct access pathway versus traditional GP-referral to NHS physiotherapy. DESIGN: The authors used a discrete event simulation (DES) model to represent a hypothetical GP practice of 10,000 patients. Costs were measured from the perspective of the NHS and society. Outcomes were predicted waiting times, the total number of patients with musculoskeletal conditions who received physiotherapy and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, each estimated over a one year period. Model inputs were based on a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in four general practices in Cheshire, UK, and other sources from the literature. RESULTS: Direct access could increase the number of patients receiving at least one physiotherapy appointment by 63%, but without investment in extra physiotherapist capacity would increase waiting time dramatically. The increase in activity is associated with a cost of £4999 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Direct access to physiotherapy services would be cost-effective and benefit patients given current cost per QALY thresholds used in England. This is because physiotherapy itself is cost-effective, rather than through savings in GP time. Direct access without an increase in supply of physiotherapists would increase waiting times and would be unlikely to be cost saving for the NHS owing to the likely increase in the use of physiotherapy services.

A Decision Analysis Evaluating Screening for Kidney Cancer Using Focused Renal Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Screening for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has been identified as a key research priority; however, no randomised control trials have been performed. Value of information analysis can determine whether further research on this topic is of value. OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) whether current evidence suggests that screening is potentially cost-effective and, if so, (2) in which age/sex groups, (3) identify evidence gaps, and (4) estimate the value of further research to close those gaps. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A decision model was developed evaluating screening in asymptomatic individuals in the UK. A National Health Service perspective was adopted. INTERVENTION: A single focused renal ultrasound scan compared with standard of care (no screening). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Expected lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Given a prevalence of RCC of 0.34% (0.18-0.54%), screening 60-yr-old men resulted in an ICER of £18 092/QALY (€22 843/QALY). Given a prevalence of RCC of 0.16% (0.08-0.25%), screening 60-yr-old women resulted in an ICER of £37327/QALY (€47 129/QALY). In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER was <£30000/QALY as long as the prevalence of RCC was ≥0.25% for men and ≥0.2% for women at age 60yr. Given the willingness to pay a threshold of £30000/QALY (€37 878/QALY), the population-expected values of perfect information were £194 million (€244 million) and £97 million (€123 million) for 60-yr-old men and women, respectively. The expected value of perfect parameter information suggests that the prevalence of RCC and stage shift associated with screening are key research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that one-off screening of 60-yr-old men is potentially cost-effective and that further research into this topic would be of value to society. PATIENT SUMMARY: Economic modelling suggests that screening 60-yr-old men for kidney cancer using ultrasound may be a good use of resources and that further research on this topic should be performed.

Reach, Recruitment, Dose, and Intervention Fidelity of the GoActive School-Based Physical Activity Intervention in the UK: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation.

School-based multi-component physical activity (PA) promotion is advocated; however, research has indicated that a multi-component approach may not always be effective at increasing adolescent PA. Evaluation of the GoActive 12-week multi-component school-based intervention showed no effect on adolescent PA. A mixed-methods process evaluation was embedded to facilitate greater understanding of the results, to elicit subgroup perceptions, and to provide insight into contextual factors influencing intervention implementation. This paper presents the reach, recruitment, dose, and fidelity of GoActive, and identifies challenges to implementation. The process evaluation employed questionnaires (1543 Year 9s), individual interviews (16 Year 9s; 7 facilitators; 9 contact teachers), focus groups (48 Year 9s; 58 mentors), alongside GoActive website analytics and researcher observations. GoActive sessions reached 39.4% of Year 9s. Intervention satisfaction was relatively high for mentors (87.3%) and facilitators (85.7%), but lower for Year 9s (59.5%) and teachers (50%). Intervention fidelity was mixed within and between schools. Mentorship was the most implemented component. Factors potentially contributing to low implementation included ambiguity of the roles subgroups played within intervention delivery, Year 9 engagement, institutional support, and further school-level constraints. Multiple challenges and varying contextual considerations hindered the implementation of GoActive in multiple school sites. Methods to overcome contextual challenges to implementation warrant in-depth consideration and innovative approaches.

Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tailored Web- and Text-Based Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care (iQuit in Practice II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of smoking is declining; however, it continues to be a major public health burden. In England, primary care is the health setting that provides smoking cessation support to most smokers. However, this setting has one of the lowest success rates. The iQuit in practice intervention (iQuit) is a tailored web-based and text message intervention developed for use in primary care consultations as an adjunct to routine smoking cessation support with the aim of increasing success rates. iQuit has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This definitive trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iQuit when used as an adjunct to the usual support provided to patients who wish to quit smoking, compared with usual care alone. METHODS: The iQuit in Practice II trial is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 1:1 individual allocation comparing usual care (ie, pharmacotherapy combined with multisession behavioral support)-the control-with usual care plus iQuit-the intervention. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics and talked to a smoking cessation advisor. Participants were randomized during the initial consultation, and those allocated to the intervention group received a tailored advice report and 90 days of text messaging in addition to the standard support provided to all patients. RESULTS: The primary outcome is self-reported prolonged abstinence biochemically verified using saliva cotinine at 6 months after the quit date. A sample size of 1700 participants, with 850 per arm, would yield 90% power to detect a 4.3% difference in validated quit rates between the groups at the two-sided 5% level of significance. The Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee approved the study in February 2016, and funding for the study was granted from May 2016. In total, 1671 participants were recruited between August 2016 and July 2019. Follow-up for all participants was completed in January 2020. Data analysis will begin in the summer of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: iQuit in Practice II is a definitive, pragmatic RCT assessing whether a digital intervention can augment the impact of routine smoking cessation support in primary care. Previous research has found good acceptability and feasibility for delivering iQuit among smoking cessation advisors working in primary care. If demonstrated to be cost-effective, iQuit could be delivered across primary care and other settings, such as community pharmacies. The potential benefit would likely be highest where less behavioral support is delivered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 44559004; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN44559004. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17160.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Less than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.

Computing the Expected Value of Sample Information Efficiently: Practical Guidance and Recommendations for Four Model-Based Methods.

Value of information (VOI) analyses can help policy makers make informed decisions about whether to conduct and how to design future studies. Historically a computationally expensive method to compute the expected value of sample information (EVSI) restricted the use of VOI to simple decision models and study designs. Recently, 4 EVSI approximation methods have made such analyses more feasible and accessible. Members of the Collaborative Network for Value of Information (ConVOI) compared the inputs, the analyst's expertise and skills, and the software required for the 4 recently developed EVSI approximation methods. Our report provides practical guidance and recommendations to help inform the choice between the 4 efficient EVSI estimation methods. More specifically, this report provides: (1) a step-by-step guide to the methods' use, (2) the expertise and skills required to implement the methods, and (3) method recommendations based on the features of decision-analytic problems.

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).