Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial

Lise Retat, Laura Pimpin, Laura Webber, Abbygail Jaccard, Amanda Lewis, Sarah Tearne, Kathryn Hood, Anna Christian-Brown, Peymane Adab, Rachna Begh, Kate Jolly, Amanda Daley, Amanda Farley, Deborah Lycett, Alecia Nickless, Ly-Mee Yu, Susan Jebb, Paul Aveyard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
The Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years.

Methods
Randomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years.

Results
Compared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice.

Conclusions
A brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)(In-press)
JournalInternational Journal of Obesity
Volume(In-press)
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Primary Health Care
Obesity
Health Care Costs
Weight Loss
Weights and Measures
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Incidence
Referral and Consultation
Weight Reduction Programs
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality of Health Care
Self-Help Groups
Health Services
Body Mass Index
Quality of Life
Morbidity
Delivery of Health Care
Health

Bibliographical note

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Nutrition and Dietetics

Cite this

Retat, L., Pimpin, L., Webber, L., Jaccard, A., Lewis, A., Tearne, S., ... Aveyard, P. (2019). Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial. International Journal of Obesity, (In-press), (In-press). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care : cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial. / Retat, Lise ; Pimpin, Laura ; Webber, Laura ; Jaccard, Abbygail; Lewis, Amanda ; Tearne, Sarah ; Hood, Kathryn; Christian-Brown, Anna ; Adab, Peymane ; Begh, Rachna; Jolly, Kate; Daley, Amanda ; Farley, Amanda; Lycett, Deborah; Nickless, Alecia ; Yu, Ly-Mee; Jebb, Susan ; Aveyard, Paul.

In: International Journal of Obesity, Vol. (In-press), 31.01.2019, p. (In-press).

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Retat, L, Pimpin, L, Webber, L, Jaccard, A, Lewis, A, Tearne, S, Hood, K, Christian-Brown, A, Adab, P, Begh, R, Jolly, K, Daley, A, Farley, A, Lycett, D, Nickless, A, Yu, L-M, Jebb, S & Aveyard, P 2019, 'Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial' International Journal of Obesity, vol. (In-press), pp. (In-press). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7
Retat, Lise ; Pimpin, Laura ; Webber, Laura ; Jaccard, Abbygail ; Lewis, Amanda ; Tearne, Sarah ; Hood, Kathryn ; Christian-Brown, Anna ; Adab, Peymane ; Begh, Rachna ; Jolly, Kate ; Daley, Amanda ; Farley, Amanda ; Lycett, Deborah ; Nickless, Alecia ; Yu, Ly-Mee ; Jebb, Susan ; Aveyard, Paul. / Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care : cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial. In: International Journal of Obesity. 2019 ; Vol. (In-press). pp. (In-press).
@article{c57f7a3edc7f4095886950beaa87f885,
title = "Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial",
abstract = "BackgroundThe Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4kg more (95{\%}CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. MethodsRandomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5{\%} over 20 years.ResultsCompared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33{\%} of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. ConclusionsA brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.",
author = "Lise Retat and Laura Pimpin and Laura Webber and Abbygail Jaccard and Amanda Lewis and Sarah Tearne and Kathryn Hood and Anna Christian-Brown and Peymane Adab and Rachna Begh and Kate Jolly and Amanda Daley and Amanda Farley and Deborah Lycett and Alecia Nickless and Ly-Mee Yu and Susan Jebb and Paul Aveyard",
note = "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7 Copyright {\circledC} and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "31",
doi = "10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7",
language = "English",
volume = "(In-press)",
pages = "(In--press)",
journal = "International Journal of Obesity",
issn = "0307-0565",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care

T2 - cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial

AU - Retat, Lise

AU - Pimpin, Laura

AU - Webber, Laura

AU - Jaccard, Abbygail

AU - Lewis, Amanda

AU - Tearne, Sarah

AU - Hood, Kathryn

AU - Christian-Brown, Anna

AU - Adab, Peymane

AU - Begh, Rachna

AU - Jolly, Kate

AU - Daley, Amanda

AU - Farley, Amanda

AU - Lycett, Deborah

AU - Nickless, Alecia

AU - Yu, Ly-Mee

AU - Jebb, Susan

AU - Aveyard, Paul

N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7 Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

PY - 2019/1/31

Y1 - 2019/1/31

N2 - BackgroundThe Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. MethodsRandomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years.ResultsCompared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. ConclusionsA brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.

AB - BackgroundThe Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. MethodsRandomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years.ResultsCompared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. ConclusionsA brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061034994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7

DO - 10.1038/s41366-018-0295-7

M3 - Article

VL - (In-press)

SP - (In-press)

JO - International Journal of Obesity

JF - International Journal of Obesity

SN - 0307-0565

ER -