4.1 Article

An economic evaluation of the expanded food and nutrition education program

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages 134-143

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.08.011

Keywords

cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness; evaluation studies; low-income population; nutrition education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

objective: To evaluate the New York State Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program using economic methodology. Design: Data were collected by nutrition educators in a pretest, posttest design with an epidemiological modeling approach to assess costs and estimate potential health benefits of the state program. Setting: Cooperative Extension, 35 counties. Participants: 5730 low-income participants. Intervention: Series of 6 or more food and nutrition lessons. Main outcome measures: Cost (program and participant); health benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and monetized benefits: society's willingness to pay for QALYs, and benefits of avoiding or delaying health care costs and loss of productivity. Analysis: Cost-effectiveness estimated from behavior change and QALY weights. Cost-benefit ratios estimated from costs and monetized benefits. Sensitivity analyses provided ranges where lack of agreement exists around parameters' values. Results: Cost was $892/graduate. Cost-effectiveness was 245 QALYs saved, at $20 863/QALY (sensitivity 42-935 QALYs, $5467-$130 311 per QALY). Societal willingness to pay benefit-to-cost ratio was $9.58:$1.00 (sensitivity $1.44-$41.92:$1:00); narrow governmental benefit-to-cost ratio was $0.82:$1.00 (sensitivity $0.08-$4.33:$1:00). Conclusions and implications: Outcome data indicate that food and nutrition behavior changes resulting from the Program are likely to improve future health and reduce health care costs. Cost-effectiveness is estimated to be as great as for many current health interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available