Exploring Outcomes to Consider in Economic Evaluations of Health Promotion Programs: What Broader Non-Health Outcomes Matter Most?

BACKGROUND: Attention is increasing on the consideration of broader non-health outcomes in economic evaluations. It is unknown which non-health outcomes are valued as most relevant in the context of health promotion. The present study fills this gap by investigating the relative importance of non-health outcomes in a health promotion context. METHOD: We investigated the relative importance of ten non-health outcomes of health promotion programs not commonly captured in QALYs. Preferences were elicited from a sample of the Dutch general public (N = 549) by means of a ranking task. These preferences were analyzed using Borda scores and rank-ordered logit models. RESULTS: The relative order of preference (from most to least important) was: self-confidence, insights into own (un)healthy behavior, perceived life control, knowledge about a certain health problem, social support, relaxation, better educational achievements, increased labor participation and work productivity, social participation, and a reduction in criminal behavior. The weight given to a particular non-health outcome was affected by the demographic variables age, gender, income, and education. Furthermore, in an open question, respondents mentioned a number of other relevant non-health outcomes, which we classified into outcomes relevant for the individual, the direct social environment, and for society as a whole. CONCLUSION: The study provides valuable insights in the non-health outcomes that are considered as most important by the Dutch general population. Ideally, researchers should include the most important non-health outcomes in economic evaluations of health promotion.

Consumer willingness to invest money and time for benefits of lifestyle behaviour change: an application of the contingent valuation method.

OBJECTIVE: To use contingent valuation (CV) to derive individual consumer values for both health and broader benefits of a public-health intervention directed at lifestyle behaviour change (LBC) and to examine the feasibility and validity of the method. METHOD: Participants of a lifestyle intervention trial (n = 515) were invited to complete an online CV survey. Respondents (n = 312) expressed willingness to invest money and time for changes in life expectancy, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and broader quality of life aspects. Internal validity was tested for by exploring associations between explanatory variables (i.e. income, paid work, experience and risk factors for cardiovascular diseases) and willingness to invest, and by examining ordering effects and respondents' sensitivity to the scope of the benefits. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (94.3%) attached value to benefits of LBC, and 87.4% were willing to invest both money and time. Respondents were willing to invest more for improvements in HRQOL (€42/month; 3 h/week) and broader quality of life aspects (€40/month; 2.6 h/week) than for improvements in life expectancy (€24/month; 2 h/week). Protest answers were limited (3%) and findings regarding internal validity were mixed. CONCLUSION: The importance of broader quality of life outcomes to consumers suggests that these outcomes are relevant to be considered in the decision making. Our research showed that CV is a feasible method to value both health and broader outcomes of LBC, but generalizability to other areas of public health still needs to be examined. Mixed evidence regarding internal validity pleads for caution to use CV as only the base for decision making.

A review of economic evaluations of behavior change interventions: setting an agenda for research methods and practice.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to review methodological quality of economic evaluations of lifestyle behavior change interventions (LBCIs) and to examine how they address methodological challenges for public health economic evaluation identified in the literature. METHODS: Pubmed and the NHS economic evaluation database were searched for published studies in six key areas for behavior change: smoking, physical activity, dietary behavior, (illegal) drug use, alcohol use and sexual behavior. From included studies (n = 142), we extracted data on general study characteristics, characteristics of the LBCIs, methodological quality and handling of methodological challenges. RESULTS: Economic evaluation evidence for LBCIs showed a number of weaknesses: methods, study design and characteristics of evaluated interventions were not well reported; methodological quality showed several shortcomings and progress with addressing methodological challenges remained limited. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this review we propose an agenda for improving future evidence to support decision-making. Recommendations for practice include improving reporting of essential study details and increasing adherence with good practice standards. Recommendations for research methods focus on mapping out complex causal pathways for modeling, developing measures to capture broader domains of wellbeing and community outcomes, testing methods for considering equity, identifying relevant non-health sector costs and advancing methods for evidence synthesis.

Consumer preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes of health promotion: results from a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Health promotion (HP) interventions have outcomes that go beyond health. Such broader nonhealth outcomes are usually neglected in economic evaluation studies. To allow for their consideration, insights are needed into the types of nonhealth outcomes that HP interventions produce and their relative importance compared with health outcomes. This study explored consumer preferences for health and nonhealth outcomes of HP in the context of lifestyle behavior change. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted among participants in a lifestyle intervention (n = 132) and controls (n = 141). Respondents made 16 binary choices between situations that can be experienced after lifestyle behavior change. The situations were described by 10 attributes: future health state value, start point of future health state, life expectancy, clothing size above ideal, days with sufficient relaxation, endurance, experienced control over lifestyle choices, lifestyle improvement of partner and/or children, monetary cost per month, and time cost per week. RESULTS: With the exception of "time cost per week" and "start point of future health state," all attributes significantly determined consumer choices. Thus, both health and nonhealth outcomes affected consumer choice. Marginal rates of substitution between the price attribute and the other attributes revealed that the attributes "endurance," "days with sufficient relaxation," and "future health state value" had the greatest impact on consumer choices. The "life expectancy" attribute had a relatively low impact and for increases of less than 3 years, respondents were not willing to trade. CONCLUSIONS: Health outcomes and nonhealth outcomes of lifestyle behavior change were both important to consumers in this study. Decision makers should respond to consumer preferences and consider nonhealth outcomes when deciding about HP interventions.