Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36066890›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Projected Return on Investment From Implementation of a Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes.

Melanie Lloyd, Helena Teede, Cate Bailey, Emily Callander, Zanfina Ademi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Melanie LloydCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helena TeedeSchool of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Cate BaileyHealth Economics Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emily CallanderSchool of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Zanfina AdemiCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Structured antenatal diet and physical activity interventions have been shown to be associated with reduced adverse pregnancy outcomes and recommended to be routinely offered to all pregnant women. The health cost implications of population-level implementation are unclear. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with integrating structured diet and physical activity interventions into routine antenatal care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was conducted from the perspective of Australian health funders. An open-source decision-tree model was constructed to compare the projected budget outcomes of implementing lifestyle intervention vs usual care. Scenario, deterministic, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were completed. The study setting was Australian health services, and the study population was all Australian women projected to give birth in the years 2022 to 2026 (approximately 330 000 per year). Interventions: Structured diet and physical activity intervention provided by trained health professionals, integrated into routine antenatal care. Comparator was usual care, which currently in Australia does not include routine structured lifestyle interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Return on investment (ROI) ratio for lifestyle intervention (cost of intervention divided by cost savings attributable to reduced maternal and infant adverse events) from the perspective of Australian health care funders. Adverse events were obtained from a published meta-analysis and population data. Costs were estimated from aggregate trial data and clinical pathways and valued at the year incurred. Results: Intervention offered an ROI ratio of 4.75 over the 5-year program; hence every Australian dollar spent on implementation produced an estimated return of A$4.75. The projected total 5-year intervention cost was A$205 million ($151 million), with cost offsets (from reduced incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes) of A$1022 million ($755 million), and health budget savings of A$807 million (95% CI, A$129 million to A$1639 million) ($596 million [95% CI, $95 million to $1211 million]); 93.3% of the 10 000 iterations were within cost saving, and results were robust to scenario and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that providing access to structured diet and physical activity lifestyle interventions for all pregnant Australian women was estimated to provide strong return on investment for health funders. The open-source model developed can be used by other jurisdictions and health services to explore cost implications of implementation within their patient population.

Indexed as

Life StylePregnancy OutcomeAustraliaClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPregnancyPrenatal Care

Identifiers

PMID36066890
PMCPMC9449797

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.