↓ Skip to main content

Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
210 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review
Published in
British Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094655
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

To determine whether brief interventions promoting physical activity are cost-effective in primary care or community settings. Systematic review of economic evaluations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Cochrane library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry up to 20 August 2014. Web of Knowledge was used for cross-reference search. We included studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions, as defined by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, promoting physical activity in primary care or the community. Methodological quality was assessed using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Data were extracted from individual studies fulfilling selection criteria using a standardised pro forma. Comparisons of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were made between studies. Of 1840 identified publications, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria describing 14 brief interventions. Studies varied widely in the methods used, such as the perspective of economic analysis, intervention effects and outcome measures. The incremental cost of moving an inactive person to an active state, estimated for eight studies, ranged from £96 to £986. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies compared with usual care and varied from £57 to £14 002 per quality-adjusted life year; dominant to £6500 per disability-adjusted life year; and £15 873 per life years gained. Brief interventions promoting physical activity in primary care and the community are likely to be inexpensive compared with usual care. Given the commonly accepted thresholds, they appear to be cost-effective on the whole, although there is notable variation between studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 210 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 222 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Other 16 7%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 49 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Sports and Recreations 25 11%
Psychology 16 7%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 64 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 152. 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 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#274,796
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#589
of 6,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,656
of 293,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#13
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,582 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 293,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.