↓ Skip to main content

Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care

Overview of attention for article published in Value in Health (Elsevier Science), August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Information Analysis of Brief Interventions to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care
Published in
Value in Health (Elsevier Science), August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijay Singh, Marc Suhrcke, Wendy Hardeman, Stephen Sutton, Edward C.F. Wilson, on behalf of the Very Brief Interventions Programme Team

Abstract

Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have shown potential to increase physical activity levels and may be cost-effective, at least in the short-term, when compared with usual care. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on their longer term costs and health benefits. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BIs to promote physical activity in primary care and to guide future research priorities using value of information analysis. A decision model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of three classes of BIs that have been used, or could be used, to promote physical activity in primary care: 1) pedometer interventions, 2) advice/counseling on physical activity, and (3) action planning interventions. Published risk equations and data from the available literature or routine data sources were used to inform model parameters. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis was conducted to estimate the value of undertaking further research. In the base-case, pedometer interventions yielded the highest expected net benefit at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. There was, however, a great deal of decision uncertainty: the expected value of perfect information surrounding the decision problem for the National Health Service Health Check population was estimated at £1.85 billion. Our analysis suggests that the use of pedometer BIs is the most cost-effective strategy to promote physical activity in primary care, and that there is potential value in further research into the cost-effectiveness of brief (i.e., <30 minutes) and very brief (i.e., <5 minutes) pedometer interventions in this setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Professor 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 42 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Psychology 8 7%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 48 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,123,458
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#673
of 4,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,154
of 327,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#18
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 327,060 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.