Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of results of the model-based economic evaluations investigating physical activity mass media campaigns

From: Economic evaluation of physical activity mass media campaigns across the globe: a systematic review

Author (year), Campaign Perspective/ Time horizon Population Campaign US$a/QALY or DALY Cost-effective considering local thresholdb Plane Level of certaintyc
Roux (2008), Wheeling Walks [34] Societal/40 years United States adult population (25-64 yrs) One-off 8-week community-wide intervention with mass media campaign $20,099/QALY gained Yes NE LOW
Cobiac (2009), Exercise, you only have to take it regularly not seriously [30] Health sector perspective/Lifetime of the population in 2003 Australian population (25-60 yrs) One-off 6-week mostly mass media campaign with some community support Cost saving
-Cost Offsets (total): -$931 million (95% UI -$1176 to -$281)
-QALY gained (total): 23,000 (95% UI: 7600 to 40,000)
De Smedt (2011), 10,000 Steps Ghent [31] Public payer/20 years (cycle length of 1 year) Population of a mid-sized city in Belgium (25-75 yrs) Life-long pedometer-based community-wide intervention with mass media campaign, with a 5-year cycle where the pedometer was implemented in year one Women: Cost-saving
-Cost offsets (average): -$386.61
-QALY gained (average): 0.11
Men: Cost-saving
-Cost offsets (average): -$521.51
-QALY gained (average): 0.16
Goryakin (2019), Hypothetical campaign [32] Health system / 31 years Italy population (18+ yrs) 18 weeks duration with 6 segments in 31 years hypothetical mostly mass media campaign $21,713/DALY Yes NE VERY LOW
Mizdrak (2020), Hypothetical campaign [33] Health system/ Lifetime of the population in 2011 New Zealand adult population (15-79 yrs) One-off hypothetical mass media campaign to promote smartphone apps for physical activity $130,740/QALY gained (95% UI 18,989 to 385,367) No NE VERY LOW
  1. NE north-east quadrant, indicates that the intervention is more costly and more effective, SE south-east quadrant, indicates that the intervention is less costly and more effective, UI uncertainty interval
  2. aIn 2020 US Dollars
  3. bImplicit threshold values given by WHO team (see Additional file 1: Appendix 10 for more details and references). We only considered whether the point estimates fell within the threshold and did not consider uncertainty intervals as they were commonly missing
  4. cOverall judgement of certainty of each economic model for WHO decision-making according to a GRADE style rating (see Additional file 1: Appendix 13 for more details)