Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows
{"title":"以改善澳大利亚成年人饮食成瘾为目标的远程保健干预措施(TRACE 计划)的成本效用和成本后果。","authors":"Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows","doi":"10.1093/pubmed/fdae273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.</p>","PeriodicalId":94107,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-utility and cost consequence of a telehealth intervention targeting improvement in addictive eating for Australian adults (the TRACE program).\",\"authors\":\"Janelle A Skinner, Mark Leary, Olivia Wynne, Phillipa J Hay, Clare E Collins, Tracy L Burrows\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pubmed/fdae273\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae273\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health (Oxford, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdae273","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-utility and cost consequence of a telehealth intervention targeting improvement in addictive eating for Australian adults (the TRACE program).
Background: The TRACE (Targeted Research for Addictive and Compulsive Eating) intervention was evaluated in a 3-month randomized controlled trial which demonstrated significant improvement in Yale Food Addiction Scale scores favoring dietitian-led telehealth (active intervention) compared with passive and control groups. This study aimed to determine intervention costs and cost-utility.
Methods: Costs of each intervention (2021$AUD) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB; incremental benefit, defined as Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) gained, multiplied by willingness to pay threshold minus incremental cost) were calculated to estimate differences between groups.
Results: The active intervention (n = 38) cost $294 (95% UI: $266, $316) per person compared to $47 (95% UI: $40, $54) in the passive intervention (n = 24), and $26 in the control group (n = 37). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50 000 per QALY score gained, the active intervention iNMB was -$186 (95% UI: -$1137, $834) and the passive group $127 (95% UI: -$1137, $834). Compared to the control group, estimates indicate a 30% chance of the active intervention, and a 60% chance of the passive intervention being cost effective.
Conclusion: Although the overall cost of the active intervention was low, this was not considered cost-effective in comparison to the passive intervention, given small QALY score gains.
Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621001079831.