↓ 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), January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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), January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijay Singh GC, Marc Suhrcke, Wendy Hardeman, Stephen Sutton, Edward C.F. Wilson

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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 22%
Student > Master 9 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Professor 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 12 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 16%
Psychology 4 9%
Sports and Recreations 4 9%
Other 10 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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
#1,438,582
of 12,373,969 outputs
Outputs from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#185
of 2,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,941
of 270,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Value in Health (Elsevier Science)
#7
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,313 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 270,201 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 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 94% of its contemporaries.