Are physical activity interventions in primary care and the community cost-effective? A systematic review of the evidence

Search strategy

A literature search was carried out using eight health-related electronic databases (Table 1).

Selection process

To be included in the systematic review, studies had to be economic analyses of lifestyle interventions that included physical activity advice and/or programmes for adults, and were based in either primary care or the community, published in English since 2002, used general study populations or those with disease states known to be improved by physical activity, and had a follow-up period of at least 6 months. Only those cost analyses that had been conducted in association with randomised controlled trials of physical activity interventions were included. The review excluded studies that were based in the workplace, used economic modelling rather than actual costs, were economic analyses based on case-studies, surveys, non-experimental studies, or theoretical scenarios, involved unique disease-state populations (for example cardiac rehabilitation patients), or did not include either cost per physical activity measure or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as outcomes.

Data extraction and analysis

Data extraction was undertaken by the primary author and verified by a second author. Type of economic analysis and perspective, intervention and comparison, participants, follow-up duration, and outcome were recorded from each study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using Drummond's checklist for assessing economic evaluations (Table 2).14 Based on the extent to which each study met Drummond's criteria, a rating of ‘poor’, ‘fair’, ‘good’, or ‘excellent’ was assigned and is listed in the first column of Table 3.

To compare the economic results of individual studies, all costs were converted to Euros (€),15 using annual average exchange rates. This method has been used previously.13 Costs have then been converted to the reference quarter of June 2008 using consumer price index (CPI) adjustments from each country and are presented as such throughout.16 Indices of consumer prices were used in preference to national indices of healthcare costs, because of the accessibility and international comparability of the former. The cost of shifting one participant into the ‘active’ category (achieving 2.5 hours per week of at least moderate-intensity physical activity), the annual cost per participant to become ‘active’, and the cost per QALY gained are reported where available. The methods used for calculating changes in QALYs are provided in the source papers.

Studies identified

The literature search identified 696 publications, from which 38 were assessed in detail. Of those, 13 studies met the selection criteria and were included in this review (Figure 1). Studies were excluded for the following reasons: eight studies did not use outcome measures that were either cost per QALY gained or a physical activity measure; two studies targeted a very specific population for secondary prevention (for example, cardiac rehabilitation patients); two studies were set in the workplace; four studies included a combined intervention (physical activity plus a nutrition intervention, or physical activity plus a psychological intervention) where the impact of the physical activity intervention could not be isolated; and four analyses were based on inadequate trials, due to short follow-up (3 months), high attrition (45%), insufficient power due to small sample size (n = 36), or absence of a comparison group.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Flowchart of study selection.

The 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria are described in Table 3 and grouped by targeted population or condition (musculoskeletal conditions, obesity or depression, sedentary adults). The descriptions of the interventions, follow-up and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for instructor-led and supervised exercise, exercise and nutrition programmes, community walking, and brief counselling with exercise on prescription are also presented in Table 3. Community walking, exercise and nutrition programmes, and brief counselling with exercise on prescription (Green Prescription) had more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios than instructor-led or supervised exercise sessions (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 2

Cost-utility (cost per QALY) for different physical activity interventions (2008 equivalent €).

Summary of main findings

Most interventions to increase physical activity were cost-effective when compared with international thresholds for acceptable value for funded interventions,28 especially where direct supervision or instruction were not required. Walking, exercise groups, or brief exercise advice on prescription delivered in person, or by phone or mail, had a lower cost per QALY compared with supervised gym-based exercise classes or instructor-led walking programmes. Many physical activity interventions had similar estimates of cost-utility to funded pharmaceutical interventions.

Costs per QALY gained varied substantially between the studies. The cost of moving one person from ‘inactive’ to ‘active’ at 12 months was estimated for four interventions, and ranged from €331 to €3673. Cost-utility was estimated in nine studies and varied from €348 to €86 877 per QALY. Community walking,21 exercise and nutrition programmes,25 and brief advice with exercise on prescription (Green Prescription)10 were the most cost-effective with respect to cost-utility. The Green Prescription,6 enhanced Green Prescription,27 and printed material or phone-delivered advice23 had similar cost-effectiveness ratios for moving one sedentary person to an active state.

When considering interventions for specific disease-based populations, the exercise prescription given by the GP and exercise counselling by the practice nurse for people with chronic or recurrent low back pain20 was more cost-effective (€4577 per QALY) than the water-based exercise intervention for older participants with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee (€9160 per QALY).18 A weekly exercise class for sedentary people aged 65 years and older24 was more cost-effective (€19 425 per QALY) than both the supervised gym-based exercise classes and the instructor-led walking programme for sedentary 40–74 year olds (€35 665 and €86 877 per QALY).26 The findings suggest that advice interventions, such as exercise on prescription and some group-based exercise programmes, are more cost-effective than individualised gym-based or instructor-led walking groups.

There is no universal threshold of cost per QALY gained to determine whether an intervention should be funded. However, most of the cost per QALY values from studies reviewed here were below the threshold reported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (£20 000–30 000),28 and lower than values reported for many funded pharmaceutical and other interventions for conditions such as diabetes (cholesterol control: €58 882 per QALY gained; intensive glucose control: €32 610 per QALY gained; case management: €41 452 per QALY gained).29–32

It should be noted that one study found exercise interventions were effective for functional improvements compared with ‘usual care’.19 However, greater gains in quality-of-life measures were found in the ‘usual care’ group than in the ‘exercise’ intervention groups (negative cost per QALY), so the cost per QALY was difficult to interpret.19

Comparing the annual cost per participant to become active is difficult due to the different definitions and analytical approaches used. Handley et al used the cost to achieve a 10% increase in the proportion of participants achieving recommended moderate or vigorous physical activity levels in a study involving adults with type 2 diabetes.22 The annual cost to increase activity by 10% for the automated telephone surveillance and nurse care management was estimated to be €551 per participant. In contrast, two studies by Elley et al11,27 used a threshold of 5 × 30 minutes of activity per week and found the cost per person to be €957 when predominantly doctor delivered,11 and €331 when nurse delivered.27 Most studies followed up participants for only 6–12 months, with only two cost-effectiveness studies undertaken on the basis of a 2-year trial.24,27

Strengths and limitations of the study

A strength of the current review is the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analyses that were based on randomised controlled trials. Accordingly, the quality of evidence included is high. However, estimates of cost-effectiveness are likely to be conservative because not all long-term benefits are accounted for in short-term randomised controlled trials. Modelled economic analyses suggest the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions may be even more favourable when long time horizons are taken into account.33 The variability of outcome measures, interventions, target population groups, costs measured, and health-system variations in cost makes comparison of these cost-effectiveness studies difficult. With different infrastructures, funding models, and cost structures, it is also difficult to make comparisons between different countries. Furthermore, some studies included funder costs only,17,21–26 while others presented societal perspectives that also included costs to the participant.11,18–20,27 Consequently, there was a wide variation in costs per QALY gained between the studies. For example, the study of Gusi et al, involving a walking programme for older women who were overweight or had moderate depression, had the lowest cost per QALY of €348.21 By comparison, the intervention with the highest cost per QALY of €86 877 was an instructor-led walking programme (10 weeks, 2–3 times per week) for physically inactive 40–74-year-old adults.26 Even so, all interventions had cost-utility (cost per QALY) values within the range of pharmaceutical interventions that are currently considered for funding by governmental funding agencies.

Comparison with existing literature

A previously published systematic review included eight studies involving interventions promoting physical activity,13 but included workplace and environmental interventions and economic modelling rather than actual costs. The previous review found that interventions directly targeting individual behaviour were able to promote the recommended levels of physical activity at a cost of about €800 per participant shifted to an active category over a 12-month period. Interventions within general practices had the most favourable cost-effectiveness ratios (€106 per participant to reach at least 3300 kJ expended per week); however, the study was based on modelled rather than actual costs.34

Gordon et al reviewed the cost-effectiveness of a number of lifestyle interventions for smoking cessation, physical activity, diet, and alcohol reduction.35 The findings for physical activity interventions generally indicated favourable cost-effectiveness: less than €55 860 per QALY, and two studies showed net cost savings.36,37 Using a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective on a simulated cohort, Roux et al examined seven types of community-based physical activity interventions.33 All of the interventions evaluated were found to be cost-effective, with costs per QALY gained ranging from €9763 to €46 853.

Implications for clinical practice

Due to the variability in study design and differences in outcome variables between the studies reviewed, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about which types of interventions are most cost-effective. However, it appears that interventions such as ‘exercise on prescription’ delivered by primary care doctors or nurses, or brief advice delivered by mail-out or telephone are more cost-effective than intensive gym-based or instructor-led interventions. Furthermore, group exercise programmes appear to be more cost-effective than instructor-led walking programmes. Interventions delivered by nurses may be more cost-effective than when delivered by GPs.

Based on the higher-quality studies, it is possible to deliver a physical activity intervention for between €1120 and €15 860 per QALY gained, which is more cost-effective than many other currently-funded pharmaceutical interventions. Therefore, physical activity interventions delivered in primary health care should be considered for funding at similar levels to currently-funded pharmaceutical interventions.