TY - JOUR
T1 - A Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of Lifestyle Interventions in Pregnancy
AU - Bailey, Cate
AU - Skouteris, Helen
AU - Harrison, Cheryce L.
AU - Hill, Briony
AU - Thangaratinam, Shakila
AU - Teede, Helena
AU - Ademi, Zanfina
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: Funding for this research has been provided from the Australian Government's Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). The MRFF provides funding to support health and medical research and innovation, with the objective of improving the health and well-being of Australians. MRFF funding has been provided to The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre under the MRFF Boosting Preventive Health Research Program. Further information on the MRFF is available at www.health.gov.au/mrff. The UK National Institute for Health Research supported the iWIP research.
Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bailey reported receiving the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship during the conduct of this study. Drs Hill and Teede reported receiving grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding Information:
Funding/Support: Funding for this research has been provided from the Australian Government’s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). The MRFF provides funding to support health and medical research and innovation, with the objective of improving the health and well-being of Australians. MRFF funding has been provided to The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre under the MRFF Boosting Preventive Health Research Program. Further information on the MRFF is available at www.health.gov.au/mrff . The UK National Institute for Health Research supported the iWIP research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/2/1
Y1 - 2022/2/1
N2 - Objectives: Lifestyle interventions during pregnancy improve maternal and infant outcomes. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 antenatal lifestyle intervention types with standard care. Methods: A decision tree model was constructed to compare lifestyle intervention effects from a novel meta-analysis. The target population was women with singleton pregnancies and births at more than 20 weeks’ gestation. Interventions were categorized as diet, diet with physical activity, physical activity, and mixed (lacking structured diet and, or, physical activity components). The outcome of interest was cost per case prevented (gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, cesarean birth) expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Australian public healthcare perspective. Scenario analyses were included for all structured interventions combined and by adding neonatal intensive care unit costs. Costs were estimated from published data and consultations with experts and updated to 2019 values. Discounting was not applied owing to the short time horizon. Results: Physical activity interventions reduced adverse maternal events by 4.2% in the intervention group compared with standard care and could be cost saving. Diet and diet with physical activity interventions reduced events by 3.5% (ICER = A$4882) and 2.9% (ICER = A$2020), respectively. Mixed interventions did not reduce events and were dominated by standard care. In scenario analysis, all structured interventions combined and all interventions when including neonatal intensive care unit costs (except mixed) may be cost saving. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for physical activity and all structured interventions combined, the probability of being cost saving was 58% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: Governments can expect a good return on investment and cost savings when implementing effective lifestyle interventions population-wide.
AB - Objectives: Lifestyle interventions during pregnancy improve maternal and infant outcomes. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 antenatal lifestyle intervention types with standard care. Methods: A decision tree model was constructed to compare lifestyle intervention effects from a novel meta-analysis. The target population was women with singleton pregnancies and births at more than 20 weeks’ gestation. Interventions were categorized as diet, diet with physical activity, physical activity, and mixed (lacking structured diet and, or, physical activity components). The outcome of interest was cost per case prevented (gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, cesarean birth) expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the Australian public healthcare perspective. Scenario analyses were included for all structured interventions combined and by adding neonatal intensive care unit costs. Costs were estimated from published data and consultations with experts and updated to 2019 values. Discounting was not applied owing to the short time horizon. Results: Physical activity interventions reduced adverse maternal events by 4.2% in the intervention group compared with standard care and could be cost saving. Diet and diet with physical activity interventions reduced events by 3.5% (ICER = A$4882) and 2.9% (ICER = A$2020), respectively. Mixed interventions did not reduce events and were dominated by standard care. In scenario analysis, all structured interventions combined and all interventions when including neonatal intensive care unit costs (except mixed) may be cost saving. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for physical activity and all structured interventions combined, the probability of being cost saving was 58% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: Governments can expect a good return on investment and cost savings when implementing effective lifestyle interventions population-wide.
KW - cost-effectiveness
KW - decision tree model
KW - diet
KW - gestational diabetes mellitus
KW - hypertensive disorders in pregnancy
KW - intervention
KW - lifestyle interventions
KW - physical activity
KW - pregnancy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85115173649&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.013
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.013
M3 - Article
C2 - 35094792
AN - SCOPUS:85115173649
SN - 1098-3015
VL - 25
SP - 194
EP - 202
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
IS - 2
ER -