Economic evaluation of aerobic exercise training in older adults with vascular cognitive impairment: PROMoTE trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that aerobic exercise may slow the progression of subcortical ischaemic vascular cognitive impairment (SIVCI) by modifying cardiovascular risk factors. Yet the economic consequences relating to aerobic training (AT) remain unknown. Therefore, our primary objective was to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of a thrice weekly AT intervention compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised trial. SETTING: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 70 adults (mean age of 74 years, 51% women) who meet the diagnostic criteria for mild SIVCI. INTERVENTION: A 6-month, thrice weekly, progressive aerobic exercise training programme compared with usual care (CON; comparator) with a follow-up assessment 6 months after formal cessation of aerobic exercise training. MEASUREMENTS: Healthcare resource usage was estimated over the 6-month intervention and 6-month follow-up period. Health status (using the EQ-5D-3L) at baseline and trial completion and 6-month follow-up was used to calculate QALYs. The incremental cost-utility ratio (cost per QALY gained) was calculated. RESULTS: QALYs were both modestly greater, indicating a health gain. Total healthcare costs (ie, 1791±1369 {2015 $CAD} at 6 months) were greater, indicating a greater cost for the thrice weekly AT group compared with CON. From the Canadian healthcare system perspective, the incremental cost-utility ratios for thrice weekly AT were cost-effective compared with CON, when using a willingness to pay threshold of $CAD 20 000 per QALY gained or higher. CONCLUSIONS: AT represents an attractive and potentially cost-effective strategy for older adults with mild SIVCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01027858.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".