4.3 Article

Cost comparison of five Australasian obesity prevention interventions for children aged from birth to two years

Journal

PEDIATRIC OBESITY
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijpo.12684

Keywords

obesity; prevention; intervention; cost

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APPID1101675]
  2. Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship
  3. Australian Research Council [FT130100637]
  4. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APPID1101675]
  5. Australian Research Council [FT130100637] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In the absence of rigorous evidence of cost-effectiveness for early childhood obesity prevention interventions, the next-best option may be for decision-makers to consider the relevant costs of interventions when allocating resources. Objectives This study aimed to estimate systematically the cost of five obesity prevention interventions in children aged 0-2 years, undertaken in research settings in Australia and New Zealand. Methods A standardised costing protocol informed the costing methodology, ensuring comparability of results across interventions. Micro-costing was undertaken, with intervention costs defined from the funder perspective and valued in 2018 Australian dollars using unit costs from the trials or market rates. Results Interventions varied widely in their resource use. The total cost per participant ranged from $80 for the CHAT SMS intervention arm (95% UI $77-$82) to $1135 for the Healthy Beginnings intervention (95% UI $1059-$1189). Time costs of personnel delivering interventions contributed >50% of total intervention costs for all included studies. Conclusions An understanding of the costs associated with intervention delivery modes is important, alongside effectiveness. Telephone delivery may include unexpected costs associated with connection to intervention participants at convenient times. A SMS-based intervention had the lowest delivery cost in this study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available