Cost-Effectiveness Findings from the Agewell Pilot Study of Behaviour Change to Promote Health and Wellbeing in Later Life
- *Corresponding Author:
- Carys Jones
Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation
IMSCaR, Bangor University, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1248 382483
Fax: +44 (0)1248 383982
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: November 13, 2015; Accepted Date: December 01, 2015; Published Date: December 08, 2015
Citation:Jones CL, Edwards RT, Nelis SM, Jones IR, Hindle JV, et al (2015) Cost-Effectiveness Findings from the Agewell Pilot Study of Behaviour Change to Promote Health and Wellbeing in Later Life. Health Econ Outcome Res Open Access 1:105 doi: 10.4172/2471-268x/1000105
Copyright: © 2015 Jones CL, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: Participation in cognitive and physical activities may help to maintain health and wellbeing in older people. The Agewell study explored the feasibility of increasing cognitive and physical activity in older people through a goal-setting approach. This paper describes the findings of the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Method: Individuals over the age of 50 and attending an Agewell centre in North Wales were randomised to one of three conditions: control (IC), goal-setting (GS), or goal-setting with mentoring (GM). We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing GS vs. IC, GM vs. IC and GM vs. GS. The primary outcome measure for this analysis was the QALY, calculated using the EQ-5D. Participants’ health and social care contacts were recorded and costed using national unit costs.
Results: Seventy participants were followed-up at 12 months. Intervention set up and delivery costs were £252 per participant in the GS arm and £269 per participant in the GM arm. Mean health and social care costs over 12 months were £1,240 (s.d. £3,496) per participant in the IC arm, £1,259 (s.d. £3,826) per participant in the GS arm and £1,164 (s.d. £2,312) per participant in the GM arm. At a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY there was a 65% probability that GS was cost-effective compared to IC (ICER of £1,070). However, there was only a 41% probability that GM was cost-effective compared to IC (ICER of £2,830) at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY.
Conclusion: Setting up and running the community based intervention was feasible. Due to the small sample size it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion about cost-effectiveness; however, our preliminary results suggest that goalsetting is likely to be cost-effective compared to the control condition of no goal-setting, the addition of mentoring was effective but not cost-effective.