↓ 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
238 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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 CF 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 238 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 4%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 128 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Unspecified 13 10%
Other 38 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 30%
Unspecified 21 15%
Sports and Recreations 17 13%
Psychology 14 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Other 30 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 164. 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 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#85,851
of 13,537,601 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#316
of 5,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,320
of 251,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Sports Medicine
#10
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,537,601 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 251,124 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.