Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app

BACKGROUND: Government interest in investing in commercial physical activity apps has increased with little evidence of their cost-effectiveness. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine the cost-effectiveness of a commercial physical activity app (Carrot Rewards) despite there being over...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC Public Health
Main Authors: Rondina, Renante, Hong, Michael, Sarma, Sisira, Mitchell, Marc
Format: Text
Language:English
Published: BioMed Central 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8548862/
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y
id ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:8548862
record_format openpolar
spelling ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:8548862 2023-05-15T17:22:52+02:00 Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app Rondina, Renante Hong, Michael Sarma, Sisira Mitchell, Marc 2021-10-27 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8548862/ https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y en eng BioMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8548862/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. CC0 PDM CC-BY BMC Public Health Research Text 2021 ftpubmed https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y 2021-10-31T01:01:58Z BACKGROUND: Government interest in investing in commercial physical activity apps has increased with little evidence of their cost-effectiveness. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine the cost-effectiveness of a commercial physical activity app (Carrot Rewards) despite there being over 100,000 in the major app stores. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the app compared to a no-intervention reference scenario using a five-year time horizon. Primary data was collected between 2016 and 2017. Data synthesis, model creation, and statistical analyses were conducted between 2019 and 2020. An age-, sex-, and geography-dependent Markov model was developed assuming a public healthcare payer perspective. A closed cohort (n = 38,452) representing the population reached by Carrot Rewards in two Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Newfoundland & Labrador) at the time of a 12-month prospective study was used. Costs and effects were both discounted at 1.5% and expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare ICERs between provinces, sexes, age groups, and engagement levels. RESULTS: Carrot Rewards had an ICER of $11,113 CAD per quality adjusted life year (QALY), well below a $50,000 CAD per QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Subgroup analyses revealed that the app had lower ICERs for British Columbians, females, highly engaged users, and adults aged 35-64 yrs., and was dominant for older adults (65 + yrs). Deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was most influenced by the relative risk of diabetes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed varying parameter estimates predominantly resulted in ICERs below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The Carrot Rewards app was cost-effective, and dominant for older adults. These results provide, for the first time, rigorous health economic evidence for a commercial physical activity app as part of public health programming. ... Text Newfoundland PubMed Central (PMC) Newfoundland BMC Public Health 21 1
institution Open Polar
collection PubMed Central (PMC)
op_collection_id ftpubmed
language English
topic Research
spellingShingle Research
Rondina, Renante
Hong, Michael
Sarma, Sisira
Mitchell, Marc
Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
topic_facet Research
description BACKGROUND: Government interest in investing in commercial physical activity apps has increased with little evidence of their cost-effectiveness. This is the first study to our knowledge to examine the cost-effectiveness of a commercial physical activity app (Carrot Rewards) despite there being over 100,000 in the major app stores. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the app compared to a no-intervention reference scenario using a five-year time horizon. Primary data was collected between 2016 and 2017. Data synthesis, model creation, and statistical analyses were conducted between 2019 and 2020. An age-, sex-, and geography-dependent Markov model was developed assuming a public healthcare payer perspective. A closed cohort (n = 38,452) representing the population reached by Carrot Rewards in two Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Newfoundland & Labrador) at the time of a 12-month prospective study was used. Costs and effects were both discounted at 1.5% and expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare ICERs between provinces, sexes, age groups, and engagement levels. RESULTS: Carrot Rewards had an ICER of $11,113 CAD per quality adjusted life year (QALY), well below a $50,000 CAD per QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Subgroup analyses revealed that the app had lower ICERs for British Columbians, females, highly engaged users, and adults aged 35-64 yrs., and was dominant for older adults (65 + yrs). Deterministic sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was most influenced by the relative risk of diabetes. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed varying parameter estimates predominantly resulted in ICERs below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The Carrot Rewards app was cost-effective, and dominant for older adults. These results provide, for the first time, rigorous health economic evidence for a commercial physical activity app as part of public health programming. ...
format Text
author Rondina, Renante
Hong, Michael
Sarma, Sisira
Mitchell, Marc
author_facet Rondina, Renante
Hong, Michael
Sarma, Sisira
Mitchell, Marc
author_sort Rondina, Renante
title Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
title_short Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
title_full Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
title_fullStr Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
title_full_unstemmed Is it worth it? Cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
title_sort is it worth it? cost-effectiveness analysis of a commercial physical activity app
publisher BioMed Central
publishDate 2021
url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8548862/
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y
geographic Newfoundland
geographic_facet Newfoundland
genre Newfoundland
genre_facet Newfoundland
op_source BMC Public Health
op_relation http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8548862/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y
op_rights © The Author(s) 2021
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
op_rightsnorm CC0
PDM
CC-BY
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11988-y
container_title BMC Public Health
container_volume 21
container_issue 1
_version_ 1766109779536642048