Cost-Utility Analysis of Physical Activity Interventions

Relevant Industries: Digital Health (software-enabled healthcare, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring), Clinical Tech (medical devices, diagnostics, therapeutics), and Consumer Wellness (preventive care, fitness, mental health, nutrition, and behavior tracking).

Objective: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned this study to evaluate the costs and health impact of a scalable physical activity program. Understanding these metrics is crucial for businesses aiming to optimize resources and enhance health outcomes effectively.

Methodology: Dr. Joseph Lightner and his team executed an 8.5-month physical activity intervention involving 178 participants across three sites. The study meticulously tracked expenses – including contracts, invoices, payroll, and receipts – to determine the cost-efficiency of improving physical activity levels. The central measure, cost per MET-hour (Metabolic Equivalent-hour), was calculated to provide clear, actionable insights.

Results: The study determined an average cost of $4.73 per MET-hour, providing a tangible benchmark for assessing cost-effectiveness. These findings were also published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Health Promotion, adding credibility and visibility to the research.

Why this Matters to Your Business: Interro Health Evidence Partner equips your business with quantifiable evidence of the cost utility of your health technology. By leveraging this rigorous analysis, your company can accelerate customer adoption, unlock new funding opportunities, and establish a distinct competitive advantage in your industry.

Ready to showcase your technology’s value? Connect with us to explore how evidence-based insights can drive measurable business success.

Reference:

Lightner JS, Valleroy E, Todd R, Eighmy KE, Grimes A. Cost Utility Analysis of an After-School Sports Sampling Program. Am J Health Promot. 2024 Feb;38(2):161-166. doi: 10.1177/08901171231210386. Epub 2023 Oct 27. PMID: 37889921.

Next
Next

Comparing Wear Compliance Across Accelerometer Protocols