Economics of sedentary behaviour: A systematic review of cost of illness, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment studies

AIMS

METHODS: RESULTS: We identified nine articles (conducted in Australia (n = 5), Europe (n = 3) and China (n = 1)); three reported healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time, whilst six were economic evaluations of interventions targeting sedentary behaviour. Healthcare costs associated with excessive sedentary time as reported in cost of illness studies were substantial; however, none explored non-health sector costs. In contrast, all full economics evaluations adopted a societal perspective; however, costs included differed depending on the intervention context. One sedentary behaviour intervention in children was cost-saving. The five interventions targeting occupational sitting time of adults in office workplaces were cost-effective. Physical environmental changes such as sit-stand desks, active workstations etc., were the key cost driver.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedentary behaviour is likely associated with excess healthcare costs, although future research should also explore costs across other sectors. Cost-effectiveness evidence of sedentary behaviour reduction interventions in workplaces is limited but consistent. Key gaps relate to the economic credentials of interventions targeting children, and modelling of long-term health benefits of interventions.

Perceived barriers and facilitators to participating in the North Carolina Healthy Food Small Retailer Program: a mixed-methods examination considering investment effectiveness

OBJECTIVE

The North Carolina Legislature appropriated funds in 2016-2019 for the Healthy Food Small Retailer Program (HFSRP), providing small retailers located in food deserts with equipment to stock nutrient-dense foods and beverages. The study aimed to: (1) examine factors facilitating and constraining implementation of, and participation in, the HFSRP from the perspective of storeowners and (2) measure and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of investment in the HFSRP.

DESIGN

The current analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative assessments of storeowner perceptions and store outcomes, as well as two innovative measures of policy investment effectiveness. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and descriptive quantitative approaches, including monthly financial reports and activity forms, and end-of-programme evaluations were collected from participating HFSRP storeowners.

SETTING

Eight corner stores in North Carolina that participated in the two cohorts (2016-2018; 2017-2019) of the HFSRP.

PARTICIPANTS

Owners of corner stores participating in the HFSRP.

RESULTS

All storeowners reported that the HFSRP benefitted their stores. In addition, the HFSRP had a positive impact on sales across each category of healthy food products. Storeowners reported that benefits would be enhanced with adjustments to programme administration and support. Specific suggestions included additional information regarding which healthy foods and beverages to stock; inventory management; handling of perishable produce; product display; modified reporting requirements and a more efficient process of delivering and maintaining equipment.

CONCLUSIONS

All storeowners reported several benefits of the HFSRP and would recommend that other storeowners participate. The barriers and challenges they reported inform potential approaches to ensuring success and sustainability of the HFSRP and similar initiatives underway in other jurisdictions.

Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science

Over a decade ago, the Society for Prevention Research endorsed the first standards of evidence for research in preventive interventions. The growing recognition of the need to use limited resources to make sound investments in prevention led the Board of Directors to charge a new task force to set standards for research in analysis of the economic impact of preventive interventions. This article reports the findings of this group's deliberations, proposes standards for economic analyses, and identifies opportunities for future prevention science. Through examples, policymakers' need and use of economic analysis are described. Standards are proposed for framing economic analysis, estimating costs of prevention programs, estimating benefits of prevention programs, implementing summary metrics, handling uncertainty in estimates, and reporting findings. Topics for research in economic analysis are identified. The SPR Board of Directors endorses the "Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science."