Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: a systematic review of health economic studies.
Werbrouck, Amber; Schmidt, Masja; Putman, Koen; Seghers, Jan; Simoens, Steven; Verhaeghe, Nick; Annemans, Lieven.
Afiliación
  • Werbrouck A; Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
  • Schmidt M; Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, O&N2 Bus 521, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
  • Putman K; Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Seghers J; Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Department of Public Health, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Simoens S; Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101 box 1500, Leuven 3001, Belgium.
  • Verhaeghe N; Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, O&N2 Bus 521, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
  • Annemans L; Interuniversity Centre for Health Economics Research (I-CHER), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Eur J Public Health ; 32(1): 87-94, 2022 02 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34864937
BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the existing literature on cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes (ERSs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, Web of Science and PsycINFO. Main inclusion criteria were: (1) insufficiently active people; (2) ERSs and (3) full health economic evaluations. No publication year limits were applied. The methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. RESULTS: Fifteen eligible publications were retrieved, presenting results of 12 different studies. Compared with usual care, ERSs were found to be cost-effective in a majority of the analyses, but with modest health gains and costs per individual. These cost-effectiveness results were also sensitive to small changes in input parameters. Two studies found that ERSs combined with a pedometer/accelerometer are cost-effective, compared with usual ERS practice. Two other studies found that an ERS with phone support and an ERS with face-to-face support might be equally effective, with similar costs. CONCLUSION: Although the literature demonstrated that ERSs could be cost-effective compared with usual care, these results were not robust. Based on a small number of studies, ERSs could be optimized by using tracking devices, or by providing a choice to the participants about the delivery mode. There is need for clarity on the effectiveness of and attendance to ERS, as more certainty about these key input parameters will strengthen health-economic evidence, and thus will allow to provide a clearer message to health policy-makers.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Derivación y Consulta / Ejercicio Físico Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Public Health Asunto de la revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Bélgica Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Derivación y Consulta / Ejercicio Físico Tipo de estudio: Health_economic_evaluation / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Public Health Asunto de la revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / SAUDE PUBLICA Año: 2022 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Bélgica Pais de publicación: Reino Unido