Economic evaluation of URMEL-ICE, a school-based overweight prevention programme comprising metabolism, exercise and lifestyle intervention in children.

Autor/inn/en	Kesztyüs, Dorothea; Schreiber, Anja; Wirt, Tamara; Wiedom, Martina; Dreyhaupt, Jens; Brandstetter, Susanne; Koch, Benjamin; Wartha, Olivia; Muche, Rainer; Wabitsch, Martin; Kilian, Reinhold; Steinacker, Jürgen M.
Titel	Economic evaluation of URMEL-ICE, a school-based overweight prevention programme comprising metabolism, exercise and lifestyle intervention in children. Gefälligkeitsübersetzung: Ökonomische Bewertung von URMEL-ICE, einem schulischen Übergewichts-Präventionsprogramm mit Stoffwechsel, Bewegung und Lebensstil-Intervention bei Kindern.
Quelle	In: The European journal of health economics, 14 (2013) 2, S. 185-195 PDF als Volltext Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1618-7598; 1618-7601
DOI	10.1007/s10198-011-0358-3
Schlagwörter	Evaluation; Fallstudie; Kind; Grundschule; Gesundheitsförderung; Übergewicht; Kosten; Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse; Intervention; Prävention
Abstract	Objective: Measuring the impact of the URMEL-ICE school-based overweight prevention programme on anthropometric measures in primary-school children, computing incremental cost-effectiveness relation (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). Methods: This is an intervention study with historical control. Propensity score method is applied to account for group differences. One-year teacher-driven classroom implementation is used, which is based on especially developed teaching material including health education, physical activity breaks and parent involvement. 354 children in the control and 365 children in the intervention group at baseline and follow-up were analysed. Effectiveness is measured as cm waist circumference (WC) and unit (0.01) waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) increase prevented in intervention vs. control group using an adjusted two-level model. Standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods, net benefit regression and a societal perspective for a 1-year time horizon are applied. Results: WC gain was 1.61 cm and WHtR gain was 0.014 significantly less in intervention vs. control group. Intervention costs were EUR24.09 per child. ICER was EUR11.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) [8.78; 15.02]) per cm WC and EUR18.55 (95% CI [14.04; 26.86]) per unit WHtR gain prevented. At a maximum willingness to pay (MWTP) of EUR35, both values of the CIs for NMB regarding WC and WHtR are located in the positive range. Conclusions: The study gives new information about the cost-effectiveness of structured health promotion embedded in daily routine at primary schools. Assuming a MWTP of EUR35 the intervention is cost-effective with a positive NMB. This result may help decision makers in implementing programmes to prevent childhood overweight in school settings.
Erfasst von	Bundesinstitut für Sportwissenschaft, Bonn
Update	2013/3