Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7219
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTrueman, P-
dc.contributor.authorAnokye, NK-
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-11T10:04:13Z-
dc.date.available2013-02-11T10:04:13Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Public Health, Online Paper, Jul 2012en_US
dc.identifier.issn1741-3850-
dc.identifier.urihttp://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/07/01/pubmed.fds050en
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7219-
dc.descriptionCopyright @ 2012 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_US
dc.descriptionThis article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: This paper explores the application of alternative approaches to economic evaluation of public health interventions, using a worked example of exercise referral schemes (ERSs). METHODS: Cost-utility (CUA) and cost-consequence analyses (CCA) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of ERSs. For the CUA, evidence was synthesized using a decision analytic model that adopts a lifetime horizon and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). CCA was conducted from a partial-societal perspective, including health and non-healthcare costs and benefits. Outcomes were reported in natural units, such as cases of strokes or CHD avoided. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, the incremental cost per QALY of ERS is £20 876. Based on a cohort of 100 000 individuals, CCA estimates cost of ERS at £22 million to the healthcare provider and £12 million to participants. The benefits of ERS include additional 3900 people becoming physically active, 51 cases of CHD avoided, 16 cases of stroke avoided, 86 cases of diabetes avoided and a gain of ∼800 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: CCA might provide greater transparency than CUA in reporting the outcomes of public health interventions and have greater resonance with stakeholders involved in commissioning these interventions.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 08/72/01). This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.en_US
dc.languageENG-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.subjectCost-consequence analysisen_US
dc.subjectCost-utility analysisen_US
dc.subjectEconomic evaluationen_US
dc.subjectPhysical activityen_US
dc.subjectPublic health interventionen_US
dc.titleApplying economic evaluation to public health interventions: The case of interventions to promote physical activityen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds050-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group-
pubs.organisational-data/Brunel/Brunel Active Staff/Health Economics Research Group/HERG-
Appears in Collections:Publications
Brunel OA Publishing Fund
Health Economics Research Group (HERG)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Fulltext.pdf199.5 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.