4.2 Article

Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to reduce overweight and obesity in 9-10-year-olds. The Cuenca study

Journal

GACETA SANITARIA
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 198-204

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2010.11.003

Keywords

Cost-effectiveness; After-school program; Physical activity; Childhood obesity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness a school-based intervention designed to reduce over-weight/obesity and other cardiovascular risk factors in children. Methods: Standard cost effectiveness analysis methods and two perspectives (societal and institutional) were used. A cluster-randomized controlled trial with 10 intervention schools (691 children) and 10 control schools (718 children) was performed. Net costs were calculated by subtracting the usual after-school care cost from intervention costs. The effectiveness of the intervention was measured as the reduction in health outcomes compared with the control group. Results: The intervention costs totaled 125,469.75(sic), representing 269.83 (sic)/year/child. The usual after-school care was estimated at 844,56 (sic)/year/child. Intervention children showed a decrease in triceps skinfold thickness (-1.25 mm, 95% CI: -1.82 to -0.67; P<.001). Intervention children with body mass index (BMI) between the percentiles 25 and 75 showed a decrease in the percentage of body fat (-0.59%; 95% CI: -1.03 to -0.67; P<.001), and those with a BMI > P75 showed a decrease in triceps skinfold thickness (-1.87 mm; 95%CI: -3.43 to -0.32; P<.001), and percentage of body fat (-0.67%; 95%CI: -1.32 to -0.01; P<.05). Conculsions: This type of after-school program for recreational physical activity to prevent obesity are likely to be a cost-effective use of public funds and warrant careful consideration by policy makers and program planners. (C) 2010 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available