Building an economic case for food interventions in the pacific

Diet-related health problems are a major issue throughout the Pacific region. Micronutrient deficiencies are widespread and rates of non-communicable diseases are increasing. There is a need for food-related policy interventions to improve the quality of the food supply and to enhance access to a healthy diet. To support the promotion and eventual implementation of these interventions, it is vital that the costs and impacts of the interventions are known. This paper outlines a project being undertaken in the region to develop cost-effectiveness models for food interventions in order to help build the case for action.<br /

Economics of obesity - learning from the past to contribute to a better future

The discipline of economics plays a varied role in informing the understanding of the problem of obesity and the impact of different interventions aimed at addressing it. This paper discusses the causes of the obesity epidemic from an economics perspective, and outlines various justifications for government intervention in this area. The paper then focuses on the potential contribution of health economics in supporting resource allocation decision making for obesity prevention/treatment. Although economic evaluations of single interventions provide useful information, evaluations undertaken as part of a priority setting exercise provide the greatest scope for influencing decision making. A review of several priority setting examples in obesity prevention/treatment indicates that policy (as compared with program-based) interventions, targeted at prevention (as compared with treatment) and focused “upstream” on the food environment, are likely to be the most cost-effective options for change. However, in order to further support decision makers, several methodological advances are required. These include the incorporation of intervention costs/benefits outside the health sector, the addressing of equity impacts, and the increased engagement of decision makers in the priority setting process

The equipping inclusion studies : assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria ; key findings and policy recommendations

Approximately one in five of the Australian population lives with disability (AIHW 2006a; ABS 2003). Of these, almost 1.9 million rely on assistive technologies to live independently (Hobbs, Close, Downing, Reynolds &amp; Walker 2009).Assistive Technology (AT) is defined as,&lsquo;any device, system or design, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified or customised, that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do, or increase the ease and safety with which a task can be performed&rsquo; (Independent Living Centres Australia n.d).&lsquo;Assistive Technology solutions&rsquo; have been defined as entailing a combination of devices (aids and equipment), environmental modifications (both in the home and outside of it), and personal care (paid and unpaid) (Assistive Technology Collaboration n.d).Despite a large number of Australians relying on AT, there is little data available about life for these Australians, the extent of AT use, or unmet need for AT. Existing research in Australia suggests that aids and equipment provision in Australia is &lsquo;fragmented&rsquo; across a plethora of government and non government programs (AIHW 2006a:35). In Victoria, one of the prime sources of government funding for AT is the Victorian Aids and Equipment Program (VAEP) which is a subsidy program for the purchase of aids and equipment, home and vehicle modifications for people with permanent or long term disability. Recent research suggests that waiting times for accessing equipment through the VAEP are high, as is the cost burden to applicants (Wilson, Wong &amp; Goodridge 2006). In addition, there appears to be a substantial level of unmet need (KPMG 2007).Additionally, there is a paucity of literature around the economic evaluation of AT interventions and solution packages, resulting in little evidence of their cost-effectiveness credentials.<br /

Modelling of potential food policy interventions in Fiji and Tonga and their impacts on noncommunicable disease mortality

Background: To compare the likely costs and benefits of a range of potential policy interventions in Fiji and Tonga targeted at diet-related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), in order to support more evidence-based decision-making.Method: A relatively simple and quick macro-simulation methodology was developed. Logic models were developed by local stakeholders and used to identify costs and dietary impacts of policy changes. Costs were confined to government costs, and excluded cost offsets. The best available evidence was combined with local data to model impacts on deaths from noncommunicable diseases over the lifetime of the target population. Given that the modelling necessarily entailed assumptions to compensate for gaps in data and evidence, use was made of probabilistic uncertainty analysis.Results: Costs of implementing policy changes were generally low, with the exception of some requiring additional long-term staffing or construction activities. The most effective policy options in Fiji and Tonga targeted access to local produce and high-fat meats respectively, and were estimated to avert approximately 3% of diet-related NCD deaths in each population. Many policies had substantially lower benefits. Cost-effectiveness was higher for the low-cost policies. Similar policies produced markedly different results in the two countries.Conclusion: Despite the crudeness of the method, the consistent modelling approach used across all the options, allowed reasonable comparisons to be made between the potential policy costs and impacts. This type of modelling can be used to support more evidence-based and informed decision-making about policy interventions and facilitate greater use of policy to achieve a reduction in NCDs.<br /

Assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity : active transport program for primary school children— TravelSMART schools curriculum program

Background: To assess from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness of a school program to increase active transport in 10- to 11-year-old Australian children as an obesity prevention measure. Methods: The TravelSMART Schools Curriculum program was modeled nationally for 2001 in terms of its impact on Body Mass Index (BMI) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) measured against current practice. Cost offsets and DALY benefits were modeled until the eligible cohort reached age 100 or died. The intervention was qualitatively assessed against second stage filter criteria (&lsquo;equity,&rsquo; &lsquo;strength of evidence,&rsquo; &lsquo;acceptability to stakeholders,&rsquo; &lsquo;feasibility of implementation,&rsquo; &lsquo;sustainability,&rsquo; and &lsquo;side-effects&rsquo;) given their potential impact on funding decisions. Results: The modeled intervention reached 267,700 children and cost $AUD13.3M (95$6.9M; $22.8M) per year. It resulted in an incremental saving of 890 (95$AUD117,000 (95% UI dominated; $1.06M). Conclusions: The intervention was not cost-effective as an obesity prevention measure under base-run modeling assumptions. The attribution of some costs to nonobesity objectives would be justified given the program&rsquo;s multiple benefits. Cost-effectiveness would be further improved by considering the wider school community impacts.<br /

The equipping inclusion studies : assistive technology use and outcomes in Victoria ; key findings and policy implications, study 1 - the equipment study, study 2 - the economic study

Approximately one in five of the Australian population lives with disability (AIHW 2006a; ABS 2003). Of these, almost 1.9 million rely on assistive technologies to live independently (Hobbs, Close, Downing, Reynolds &amp; Walker 2009).Assistive Technology (AT) is defined as,&lsquo;any device, system or design, whether acquired commercially or off the shelf, modified or customised, that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be unable to do, or increase the ease and safety with which a task can be performed&rsquo; (Independent Living Centres Australia n.d).&lsquo;Assistive Technology solutions&rsquo; have been defined as entailing a combination of devices (aids and equipment), environmental modifications (both in the home and outside of it), and personal care (paid and unpaid) (Assistive Technology Collaboration n.d).Despite a large number of Australians relying on AT, there is little data available about life for these Australians, the extent of AT use, or unmet need for AT. Existing research in Australia suggests that aids and equipment provision in Australia is &lsquo;fragmented&rsquo; across a plethora of government and non government programs (AIHW 2006a:35). In Victoria, one of the prime sources of government funding for AT is the Victorian Aids and Equipment Program (VAEP) which is a subsidy program for the purchase of aids and equipment, home and vehicle modifications for people with permanent or long term disability. Recent research suggests that waiting times for accessing equipment through the VAEP are high, as is the cost burden to applicants (Wilson, Wong &amp; Goodridge 2006). In addition, there appears to be a substantial level of unmet need (KPMG 2007).Additionally, there is a paucity of literature around the economic evaluation of AT interventions and solution packages, resulting in little evidence of their cost-effectiveness credentials.<br /

Economic Evaluation Plan (EEP) for A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT): An international trial to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of commencing out of bed standing and walking training (very early mobilization) within 24 h of stroke onset with usual stroke unit care

Rationale: A key objective of A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial is to determine if the intervention, very early mobilisation following stroke, is cost-effective. Resource use data were collected to enable an economic evaluation to be undertaken and a plan for the main economic analyses was written prior to the completion of follow up data collection. Aim and hypothesis To report methods used to collect resource use data, pre-specify the main economic evaluation analyses and report other intended exploratory analyses of resource use data. Sample size estimates: Recruitment to the trial has been completed. A total of 2,104 participants from 56 stroke units across three geographic regions participated in the trial. Methods and design: Resource use data were collected prospectively alongside the trial using standardised tools. The primary economic evaluation method is a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare resource use over 12 months with health outcomes of the intervention measured against a usual care comparator. A cost-utility analysis is also intended. Study outcome: The primary outcome in the cost-effectiveness analysis will be favourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 12 months. Cost-utility analysis will use health-related quality of life, reported as quality-adjusted life years gained over a 12 month period, as measured by the modified Rankin Scale and the Assessment of Quality of Life. Discussion: Outcomes of the economic evaluation analysis will inform the cost-effectiveness of very early mobilisation following stroke when compared to usual care. The exploratory analysis will report patterns of resource use in the first year following stroke

Methods for the evaluation of the Jamie Oliver Ministry of Food program, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Community-based programs aimed at improving cooking skills, cooking confidence and individual eating behaviours have grown in number over the past two decades. Whilst some evidence exists to support their effectiveness, only small behavioural changes have been reported and limitations in study design may have impacted on results.This paper describes the first evaluation of the Jamie Oliver Ministry of Food Program (JMoF) Australia, in Ipswich, Queensland. JMoF Australia is a community-based cooking skills program open to the general public consisting of 1.5 hour classes weekly over a 10 week period, based on the program of the same name originating in the United Kingdom. METHODS/DESIGN: A mixed methods study design is proposed. Given the programmatic implementation of JMoF in Ipswich, the quantitative study is a non-randomised, pre-post design comparing participants undergoing the program with a wait-list control group. There will be two primary outcome measures: (i) change in cooking confidence (self-efficacy) and (ii) change in self-reported mean vegetable intake (serves per day). Secondary outcome measures will include change in individual cooking and eating behaviours and psycho-social measures such as social connectedness and self-esteem. Repeated measures will be collected at baseline, program completion (10 weeks) and 6 months follow up from program completion. A sample of 250 participants per group will be recruited for the evaluation to detect a mean change of 0.5 serves a day of vegetables at 80% power (0.5% significance level). Data analysis will assess the magnitude of change of these variables both within and between groups and use sub group analysis to explore the relationships between socio-demographic characteristics and outcomes.The qualitative study will be a longitudinal design consisting of semi-structured interviews with approximately 10-15 participants conducted at successive time points. An inductive thematic analysis will be conducted to explore social, attitudinal and behavioural changes experienced by program participants. DISCUSSION: This evaluation will contribute to the evidence of whether cooking programs work in terms of improving health and wellbeing and the underlying mechanisms which may lead to positive behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Trial registration number: ACTRN12611001209987