Title |
Modelled Cost-Effectiveness of a Package Size Cap and a Kilojoule Reduction Intervention to Reduce Energy Intake from Sugar-Sweetened Beverages in Australia
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nutrients, September 2017
|
DOI | 10.3390/nu9090983 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Michelle Crino, Ana Maria Mantilla Herrera, Jaithri Ananthapavan, Jason H. Y. Wu, Bruce Neal, Yong Yi Lee, Miaobing Zheng, Anita Lal, Gary Sacks |
Abstract |
Interventions targeting portion size and energy density of food and beverage products have been identified as a promising approach for obesity prevention. This study modelled the potential cost-effectiveness of: a package size cap on single-serve sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) >375 mL ( package size cap ), and product reformulation to reduce energy content of packaged SSBs ( energy reduction ). The cost-effectiveness of each intervention was modelled for the 2010 Australia population using a multi-state life table Markov model with a lifetime time horizon. Long-term health outcomes were modelled from calculated changes in body mass index to their impact on Health-Adjusted Life Years (HALYs). Intervention costs were estimated from a limited societal perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3%. Total intervention costs estimated in AUD 2010 were AUD 210 million. Both interventions resulted in reduced mean body weight ( package size cap : 0.12 kg; energy reduction : 0.23 kg); and HALYs gained ( package size cap : 73,883; energy reduction : 144,621). Cost offsets were estimated at AUD 750.8 million ( package size cap ) and AUD 1.4 billion ( energy reduction ). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that both interventions were "dominant", and likely to result in long term cost savings and health benefits. A package size cap and kJ reduction of SSBs are likely to offer excellent "value for money" as obesity prevention measures in Australia. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 5 | 33% |
Netherlands | 2 | 13% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
Ireland | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 7 | 47% |
Scientists | 6 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
Researcher | 12 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
Lecturer | 4 | 4% |
Other | 15 | 14% |
Unknown | 37 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 14% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 5% |
Psychology | 5 | 5% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 4% |
Other | 20 | 19% |
Unknown | 40 | 38% |