Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for increasing the possession of functioning smoke alarms in households with pre-school children: a modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The UK has one of the highest rates for deaths from fire and flames in children aged 0-14 years compared to other high income countries. Evidence shows that smoke alarms can reduce the risk of fire-related injury but little exists on their cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of different interventions for the uptake of 'functioning' smoke alarms and consequently for the prevention of fire-related injuries in children in the UK.

Methods

We carried out a decision model-based probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis. We used a hypothetical population of newborns and evaluated the impact of living in a household with or without a functioning smoke alarm during the first 5 years of their life on overall lifetime costs and quality of life from a public health perspective. We compared seven interventions, ranging from usual care to more complex interventions comprising of education, free/low cost equipment giveaway, equipment fitting and/or home safety inspection.

Results

Education and free/low cost equipment was the most cost-effective intervention with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £34,200 per QALY gained compared to usual care. This was reduced to approximately £4,500 per QALY gained when 1.8 children under the age of 5 were assumed per household.

Conclusions

Assessing cost-effectiveness, as well as effectiveness, is important in a public sector system operating under a fixed budget restraint. As highlighted in this study, the more effective interventions (in this case the more complex interventions) may not necessarily be the ones considered the most cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Saramago P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4046996 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysical inactivity is a key risk factor for chronic disease, but a growing number of people are not achieving the recommended levels of physical activity necessary for good health. Australians are no exception; despite Australia's image as a sporting nation, with success at the elite level, the majority of Australians do not get enough physical activity. There are many options for intervention, from individually tailored advice, such as counselling from a general practitioner, to population-wide approaches, such as mass media campaigns, but the most cost-effective mix of interventions is unknown. In this study we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity.Methods and findingsFrom evidence of intervention efficacy in the physical activity literature and evaluation of the health sector costs of intervention and disease treatment, we model the cost impacts and health outcomes of six physical activity interventions, over the lifetime of the Australian population. We then determine cost-effectiveness of each intervention against current practice for physical activity intervention in Australia and derive the optimal pathway for implementation. Based on current evidence of intervention effectiveness, the intervention programs that encourage use of pedometers (Dominant) and mass media-based community campaigns (Dominant) are the most cost-effective strategies to implement and are very likely to be cost-saving. The internet-based intervention program (AUS$3,000/DALY), the GP physical activity prescription program (AUS$12,000/DALY), and the program to encourage more active transport (AUS$20,000/DALY), although less likely to be cost-saving, have a high probability of being under a AUS$50,000 per DALY threshold. GP referral to an exercise physiologist (AUS$79,000/DALY) is the least cost-effective option if high time and travel costs for patients in screening and consulting an exercise physiologist are considered.ConclusionsIntervention to promote physical activity is recommended as a public health measure. Despite substantial variability in the quantity and quality of evidence on intervention effectiveness, and uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of behavioural changes, it is highly likely that as a package, all six interventions could lead to substantial improvement in population health at a cost saving to the health sector. Please see later in the article for Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundImproving physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior represent important areas for intervention in childhood in order to reduce the burden of chronic disease related to obesity and physical inactivity in later life. This paper aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of a multi-arm primary school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in 8-9 year old children (Transform-Us!).MethodsModelled cost-utility analysis, using costs and effects from a cluster randomized controlled trial of a 30-month intervention that used pedagogical and environmental strategies to reduce and break up sedentary behaviour (SB-I), promote physical activity (PA-I), or a combined approach (PA + SB-I), compared to current practice. A validated multiple-cohort lifetable model (ACE-Obesity Policy model) estimated the obesity and physical activity-related health outcomes (measured as change in body mass index and change in metabolic equivalent task minutes respectively) and healthcare cost-savings over the cohort's lifetime from the public-payer perspective, assuming the intervention was delivered to all 8-9 year old children attending Australian Government primary schools. Sensitivity analyses tested the impact on cost-effectiveness of varying key input parameters, including maintenance of intervention effect assumptions.ResultsCost-effectiveness results demonstrated that, when compared to control schools, the PA-I and SB-I intervention arms were "dominant", meaning that they resulted in net health benefits and healthcare cost-savings if the intervention effects were maintained. When the costs and effects of these intervention arms were extrapolated to the Australian population, results suggested significant potential as obesity prevention measures (PA-I: 60,780 HALYs saved (95% UI 15,007-109,413), healthcare cost-savings AUD641M (95% UI AUD165M-$1.1B); SB-I: 61,126 HALYs saved (95% UI 11,770 - 111,249), healthcare cost-savings AUD654M (95% UI AUD126M-1.2B)). The PA-I and SB-I interventions remained cost-effective in sensitivity analysis, assuming the full decay of intervention effect after 10 years.ConclusionsThe PA-I and SB-I Transform-Us! intervention arms represent good value for money and could lead to health benefits and healthcare cost-savings arising from the prevention of chronic disease in later life if intervention effects are sustained.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN83725066). Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number (ACTRN12609000715279).

Project description:AimsTo evaluate costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of increased reach of specific smoking cessation interventions in Germany.DesignA Markov-based state transition return on investment model (EQUIPTMOD) was used to evaluate current smoking cessation interventions as well as two prospective investment scenarios. A health-care perspective (extended to include out-of-pocket payments) with life-time horizon was considered. A probabilistic analysis was used to assess uncertainty concerning predicted estimates.SettingGermany.ParticipantsCohort of current smoking population (18+ years) in Germany.InterventionsInterventions included group-based behavioural support, financial incentive programmes and varenicline. For prospective scenario 1 the reach of group-based behavioral support, financial incentive programme and varenicline was increased by 1% of yearly quit attempts (= 57 915 quit attempts), while prospective scenario 2 represented a higher reach, mirroring the levels observed in England.MeasurementsEQUIPTMOD considered reach, intervention cost, number of quitters, quality-of-life years (QALYs) gained, cost-effectiveness and return on investment.FindingsThe highest returns through reduction in smoking-related health-care costs were seen for the financial incentive programme (€2.71 per €1 invested), followed by that of group-based behavioural support (€1.63 per €1 invested), compared with no interventions. Varenicline had lower returns (€1.02 per €1 invested) than the other two interventions. At the population level, prospective scenario 1 led to 15 034 QALYs gained and €27 million cost-savings, compared with current investment. Intervention effects and reach contributed most to the uncertainty around the return-on-investment estimates. At a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of only €5000, the probability of being cost-effective is approximately 75% for prospective scenario 1.ConclusionsIncreasing the reach of group-based behavioural support, financial incentives and varenicline for smoking cessation by just 1% of current annual quit attempts provides a strategy to German policymakers that improves the population's health outcomes and that may be considered cost-effective.