Priority-setting for Obesity Prevention-The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness of Obesity Prevention Policies in Australia (ACE-Obesity Policy) Study
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
The aim of the ACE-Obesity Policy study was to assess the economic credentials of a suite of obesity prevention policies across multiple sectors and areas of governance for the Australian setting. The study aimed to place the cost-effectiveness results within a broad decision-making context by providing an assessment of the key considerations for policy implementation. The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness (ACE) approach to priority-setting was used. Systematic literature reviews were undertaken to assess the evidence of intervention effectiveness on body mass index and/or physical activity for selected interventions. A standardised evaluation framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each intervention compared to a 'no intervention' comparator, from a limited societal perspective. A multi-state life table Markov cohort model was used to estimate the long-term health impacts (quantified as health adjusted life years (HALYs)) and health care cost-savings resulting from each intervention. In addition to the technical cost-effectiveness results, qualitative assessments of implementation considerations were undertaken. All 16 interventions evaluated were found to be cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD50,000 per HALY gained). Eleven interventions were dominant (health promoting and cost-saving). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the non-dominant interventions ranged from AUD1,728 to 28,703 per HALY gained. Regulatory interventions tended to rank higher on their cost-effectiveness results, driven by lower implementation costs. However, the program-based policy interventions were generally based on higher quality evidence of intervention effectiveness. This comparative analysis of the economic credentials of obesity prevention policies for Australia indicates that there are a broad range of policies that are likely to be cost-effective, although policy options vary in strength of evidence for effectiveness, affordability, feasibility, acceptability to stakeholders, equity impact and sustainability. Implementation of these policies will require sustained co-ordination across jurisdictions and multiple government sectors in order to generate the predicted health benefits for the Australian population.
Wanjau M, Aminde L, Veerman J BMJ Public Health. 2025; 2(1):e000566.
PMID: 40018101 PMC: 11812816. DOI: 10.1136/bmjph-2023-000566.
Arenas D, Bodi-Torralba M, Oliver A, Cantallops J, Ponseti F, Palou-Sampol P Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1451731.
PMID: 39582995 PMC: 11583342. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1451731.
Jia S, Todd A, Vanderlee L, Farrell P, Allman-Farinelli M, Sacks G BMC Med. 2024; 22(1):542.
PMID: 39558372 PMC: 11575118. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03747-8.
Tran G, Kerr E, Kelly B, Ryan S, Norman J, Hammersley M Health Promot J Austr. 2024; 36(1):e913.
PMID: 39155613 PMC: 11730648. DOI: 10.1002/hpja.913.
Emmert-Fees K, Felea A, Staudigel M, Ananthapavan J, Laxy M BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):2013.
PMID: 39068431 PMC: 11283708. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19488-5.