Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program.

ABSTRACT: Impoverished urban children suffer disproportionately from asthma and underuse preventive asthma medications. The objective of this study was to examine cost-effectiveness (CE) of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program compared with usual care (UC).The analysis was based on the SBAT trial, including 525 children aged 3 to 10 years attending urban preschool or elementary school who were randomized to either UC or administration of 1 dose of preventive asthma medication at school by the school nurse each school day. The primary outcome was the mean number of symptom-free days (SFDs). The impact of the intervention on medical costs was estimated by using parent-reported child health services utilization data and average national reimbursement rates. We estimated the cost of running the program using wages for program staff. Productivity costs were estimated by using value of parent lost time due to child illness. CE of the SBAT program compared with UC was evaluated based on the incremental CE ratio.The health benefit of the intervention was equal to ?158 SFD gained per each 30-day period (P < .05) per 100 children. The programmatic expenses summed to an extra $4822 per 100 children per month. The net saving due to the intervention (reduction in medical costs and parental productivity, and improvement in school attendance) was $3240, resulting in the incremental cost-savings difference of $1583 and CE of $10 per 1 extra SFD gained.The SBAT was effective and cost-effective in reducing symptoms in urban children with asthma compared with other existing programs.

SUBMITTER: Noyes K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3581846 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program.

Noyes Katia K Bajorska Alina A Fisher Susan S Sauer Joseph J Fagnano Maria M Halterman Jill S JS

Pediatrics 20130211 3

<h4>Background and objective</h4>Impoverished urban children suffer disproportionately from asthma and underuse preventive asthma medications. The objective of this study was to examine cost-effectiveness (CE) of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program compared with usual care (UC).<h4>Methods</h4>The analysis was based on the SBAT trial, including 525 children aged 3 to 10 years attending urban preschool or elementary school who were randomized to either UC or administration of 1 dose of ...[more]

PMID: 23400614

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAsthma is the most common chronic childhood disease, with Black children experiencing worse morbidity and mortality. It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of efficacious interventions in community settings that have the greatest likelihood of serving at-risk families.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a multilevel home- and school (Head Start)-based asthma educational program compared with a Head Start-based asthma educational program alone in improving asthma outcomes in children.Design, setting, and participantThis randomized clinical trial included 398 children with asthma enrolled in Head Start preschool programs in Baltimore, Maryland, and their primary caregivers. Participants were recruited from April 1, 2011, to November 31, 2016, with final data collection ending December 31, 2017. Data were analyzed from March 18 to August 30, 2018.InterventionsAsthma Basic Care (ABC) family education combined with Head Start asthma education compared with Head Start asthma education alone.Main outcomes and measuresAsthma control as measured by the Test for Respiratory and Asthma Control in Kids (TRACK) score.ResultsAmong the 398 children included in the analysis (247 boys [62.1%]; mean [SD] age, 4.2 [0.7] years), the ABC plus Head Start program improved asthma control (β = 6.26; 95% CI, 1.77 to 10.75; P < .001), reduced courses of oral corticosteroids (β = -0.61; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.09; P = .02), and reduced hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.61; P < .001) during a 12-month period.Conclusion and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, combined family and preschool asthma educational interventions improved asthma control and reduced courses of oral corticosteroids and hospitalizations. Multilevel interventions implemented in community settings that serve low-income minority families may be key to reducing disparities in asthma outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01519453.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing research support for the use of mindfulness training (MT) in schools, but almost no high-quality evidence about different training models for people wishing to teach mindfulness in this setting. Effective dissemination of MT relies on the development of scalable training routes.ObjectiveTo compare 4 training routes for school teachers wishing to deliver MT differing in intensity and potential scalability, considering teaching competency, training acceptability, and cost-effectiveness.MethodsSchools were randomized to an existing route comprising an 8-session instructor-led personal mindfulness course, combined with 4-day MT program training, or 1 of 3 more scalable, lower intensity, alternatives: an instructor-led personal mindfulness course combined with 1-day MT program training, a self-taught personal mindfulness course (delivered through a course book) combined with 4-day MT program training, and a self-taught personal mindfulness course combined with 1-day MT program training.ResultsAttrition from training was substantial across all routes. The instructor-led course was more effective than the self-taught course in increasing teachers' personal mindfulness skills. Even the most intensive (existing) training route brought only 29% of the teachers commencing training, and 56% of those completing the study protocol, to the required minimum competency threshold (an advanced beginner rating on an adapted version of the Mindfulness-based Interventions Teaching Assessment Criteria). The differences in levels of competency achieved by existing training compared with the more scalable alternatives were modest, with economic evaluation suggesting that the existing route was both more expensive and more effective than lower intensity alternatives, but with no statistically significant differences between routes.ConclusionsThis research questions the move toward abbreviating teacher training to increase scalability and suggests instead that many teachers require additional support to ensure competency from first delivery of MT in the classroom.

Project description:BackgroundEconomic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost-utility and cost-benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial.MethodsThe standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost-utility ratio (CUR) and A cost-benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions.ResultsThe CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9).ConclusionsComprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets