Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDavies, Melanie
dc.date.accessioned2023-05-10T08:10:23Z
dc.date.available2023-05-10T08:10:23Z
dc.date.issued2022-11-11
dc.identifier.citationCox, E., Walker, S., Edwardson, C. L., Biddle, S. J. H., Clarke-Cornwell, A. M., Clemes, S. A., Davies, M. J., Dunstan, D. W., Eborall, H., Granat, M. H., Gray, L. J., Healy, G. N., Maylor, B. D., Munir, F., Yates, T., & Richardson, G. (2022). The Cost-Effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(22), 14861. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214861en_US
dc.identifier.other10.3390/ijerph192214861
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/16920
dc.description.abstractSedentary behaviours continue to increase and are associated with heightened risks of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of SMART Work & Life (SWAL), an intervention designed to reduce sitting time inside and outside of work, both with (SWAL-desk) and without (SWAL-only) a height-adjustable workstation compared to usual practice (control) for UK office workers. Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in pound sterling (2019-2020). Discounted costs and QALYs were estimated using regression methods with multiply imputed data from the SMART Work & Life trial. Absenteeism, productivity and wellbeing measures were also evaluated. The average cost of SWAL-desk was £228.31 and SWAL-only £80.59 per office worker. Within the trial, SWAL-only was more effective and costly compared to control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £12,091 per QALY) while SWAL-desk was dominated (least effective and most costly). However, over a lifetime horizon, both SWAL-only and SWAL-desk were more effective and more costly than control. Comparing SWAL-only to control generated an ICER of £4985 per QALY. SWAL-desk was more effective and costly than SWAL-only, generating an ICER of £13,378 per QALY. Findings were sensitive to various worker, intervention, and extrapolation-related factors. Based on a lifetime horizon, SWAL interventions appear cost-effective for office-workers conditional on worker characteristics, intervention cost and longer-term maintenance in sitting time reductions.
dc.description.urihttps://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/22/14861en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectSMARTen_US
dc.subjectCost-effectivenessen_US
dc.subjectHealthy habitsen_US
dc.subjectSedentary behaviouren_US
dc.subjectStanding desksen_US
dc.titleThe cost-effectiveness of the SMART work & life intervention for reducing sitting timeen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214861en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractSedentary behaviours continue to increase and are associated with heightened risks of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of SMART Work & Life (SWAL), an intervention designed to reduce sitting time inside and outside of work, both with (SWAL-desk) and without (SWAL-only) a height-adjustable workstation compared to usual practice (control) for UK office workers. Health outcomes were assessed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and costs in pound sterling (2019-2020). Discounted costs and QALYs were estimated using regression methods with multiply imputed data from the SMART Work & Life trial. Absenteeism, productivity and wellbeing measures were also evaluated. The average cost of SWAL-desk was £228.31 and SWAL-only £80.59 per office worker. Within the trial, SWAL-only was more effective and costly compared to control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): £12,091 per QALY) while SWAL-desk was dominated (least effective and most costly). However, over a lifetime horizon, both SWAL-only and SWAL-desk were more effective and more costly than control. Comparing SWAL-only to control generated an ICER of £4985 per QALY. SWAL-desk was more effective and costly than SWAL-only, generating an ICER of £13,378 per QALY. Findings were sensitive to various worker, intervention, and extrapolation-related factors. Based on a lifetime horizon, SWAL interventions appear cost-effective for office-workers conditional on worker characteristics, intervention cost and longer-term maintenance in sitting time reductions.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record