| Title |
Economic evaluation of the direct healthcare cost savings resulting from the use of walking interventions to prevent coronary heart disease in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Health Economics and Management, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10754-009-9074-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henry Zheng, Fred Ehrlich, Janaki Amin |
| Abstract |
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in Australia. Direct healthcare costs of CHD exceed those of any other disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the direct healthcare cost savings resulting from walking interventions to prevent CHD in Australia. A meta-analysis was performed to quantify the efficacy of walking interventions in preventing CHD. The etiologic fraction and other mathematical models were applied to quantify the cost savings resulting from walking interventions to prevent CHD. The net direct healthcare cost savings in CHD prevention resulting from 30 min of normal walking a day for 5-7 days a week by the sufficient walking population were estimated at AU$126.73 million in 2004. The cost savings could increase to $419.90 million if all the inactive adult Australians engaged in 1 h of normal walking a day for 5-7 days a week. Given its low injury risk and high adherence, walking should be advocated as a key population-based primary intervention strategy for CHD prevention and healthcare cost reduction. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#261
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,236
of 108,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Economics and Management
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them