Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: an economic evaluation of the 48-month PROPELS randomized controlled trial

  • Laura Ellen Heathcote
  • , Daniel J. Pollard
  • , Alan Brennan
  • , Melanie J. Davies
  • , Helen Eborall
  • , Charlotte L. Edwardson
  • , Michael Gillett
  • , Laura J. Gray
  • , Simon J. Griffin
  • , Wendy Hardeman
  • , Joseph Henson
  • , Kamlesh Khunti
  • , Stephen Sharp
  • , Stephen Sutton
  • , Thomas Yates

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: Physical activity (PA) is protective against type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, data on pragmatic long-term interventions to reduce the risk of developing T2D via increased PA are lacking. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a pragmatic PA intervention in a multiethnic population at high risk of T2D.

Materials and methods: We adapted the School for Public Health Research diabetes prevention model, using the PROPELS trial data and analyses of the NAVIGATOR trial. Lifetime costs, lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each intervention (Walking Away (WA) and Walking Away Plus (WA+)) versus usual care and compared with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s willingness-to-pay of £20 000–£30 000 per QALY gained. We conducted scenario analyses on the outcomes of the PROPELS trial data and a threshold analysis to determine the change in step count that would be needed for the interventions to be cost-effective.

Results: Estimated lifetime costs for usual care, WA, and WA+ were £22 598, £23 018, and £22 945, respectively. Estimated QALYs were 9.323, 9.312, and 9.330, respectively. WA+ was estimated to be more effective and cheaper than WA. WA+ had an ICER of £49 273 per QALY gained versus usual care. In none of our scenario analyses did either WA or WA+ have an ICER below £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis suggested that a PA intervention costing the same as WA+ would have an ICER below £20 000/QALY if it were to achieve an increase in step count of 500 steps per day which was 100% maintained at 4 years.

Conclusions: We found that neither WA nor WA+ was cost-effective at a limit of £20 000 per QALY gained. Our threshold analysis showed that interventions to increase step count can be cost-effective at this limit if they achieve greater long-term maintenance of effect.

Trial Registration number: ISRCTN registration: ISRCTN83465245: The PRomotion Of Physical activity through structured Education with differing Levels of ongoing Support for those with pre-diabetes (PROPELS)https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN83465245.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere003516
JournalBMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
Volume12
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 12 Mar 2024

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Cite this