Premium
Increasing heart‐health lifestyles in deprived communities: economic evaluation of lay health trainers
Author(s) -
Barton Garry R.,
Goodall Mark,
Bower Peter,
Woolf Sue,
Capewell Simon,
Gabbay Mark B.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01686.x
Subject(s) - medicine , environmental health , nursing , psychology
Rationale, aims and objectives Cardiovascular disease (CVD) often arises from modifiable lifestyle factors. Health care professionals may lack the skills and resources to sustain behaviour change, lay ‘health trainers’ (LHT) offer a potential alternative. We sought to assess the cost‐effectiveness of using a LHT to improve heart‐health lifestyles in deprived communities. Methods Participants in this randomized trial were aged ≥18 years with at least one risk factor for CVD (hypertension, raised cholesterol, diabetes, BMI>30 or current smoker). Both groups received health promotion literature. LHT were also able to provide intervention participants with information, advice and support aimed at changing beliefs and behaviour. Costs and quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) changes were estimated over 6 months. The cost‐utility [incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER)] of LHT was calculated and assessed in relation to the cost‐effectiveness threshold of £20 000–30 000 per QALY. The probability of LHT being cost‐effective was also calculated. Results Seventy‐two participants were randomized to a LHT, with 38 controls. The mean cost of the LHT intervention was £151. On average, other health and social service costs fell by £21 for controls and £75 for intervention participants giving a LHT mean overall incremental cost of £98. The mean QALY gains were 0.022 and 0.028, respectively. The ICER for LHT was £14 480, yet there was a 61% chance of making the wrong decision at a £20 000/QALY threshold. Conclusion LHT provision was estimated to be cost‐effective for people at risk of CVD. However, a large level of uncertainty was associated with that decision.