Skip to main content

Table 3 Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility (ICUR) ratios of the Active Plus intervention conditions

From: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a Web-based or print-delivered tailored intervention to promote physical activity among adults aged over fifty: an economic evaluation of the Active Plus intervention

  Cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-utility analysis
  Incremental costsa,b Incremental MET-hours/week ICERc Incremental costsa,b Incremental QALYsd ICURc
Intervention vs. control       
Intervention as a whole -174 3.8 -46e -153 -0.002 101,169f
PB -288 5.3 -55e -315 -0.008 38,120f
PE -464 5.0 -94e -434 -0.001 405,892f
WB 318 3.0 108h 364 -0.001 440,164g
WE -255 1.8 -139e -211 0.004 -47,293e
Environment vs. basic       
PE vs. PB -176 -0.3 555h -119 0.007 -16,516e
WE vs. WB -573 -1.1 514h -575 0.005 -108,851e
Print vs. Web       
PB vs. WB -606 2.3 -261e -679 -0.007 91,336f
PE vs. WE -209 3.1 -67e -223 -0.006 40,426f
  1. C = control group, PB = printed basic intervention, PE = printed environmental intervention, WB = Web-based basic intervention, WE = Web-based environmental intervention.
  2. aIn Euros; bdifferences in incremental costs for the ICER and ICUR occur due to differences in the number of participants for which MET-hours/week and QALYs were available; ccalculated according to the formula ICER (or ICUR) = (Costsi-Costsc)/(Effecti-Effectc); dBased on the Dutch algorithm for the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) scores; edominant; fdominant based on WTP = €20,000 (i.e. savings larger than WTP); gdominated; hpreferred intervention depends on WTP (unknown for PA).