Costs and benefits of a school-based health intervention in Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
School-based programmes for preventing childhood obesity have been shown to be effective in improving eating habits and nutritional status, but few intervention programmes with a controlled design have included an economic evaluation. In this study, we conducted a cost-consequence analysis to evaluate the costs and the health benefits of the 'Planning Health in School' programme (PHS-pro) implemented in the Northern region of Portugal to 449 children of 10-14 years old. Previous study has showed that after PHS-pro, several anthropometric measures significantly improved in the intervention group (height, waist circumference and waist-height ratio) compared with the control group, followed by significant improvements on soft drinks, fruit and vegetables daily consumptions. Costs were estimated according the two phases of the programme: designing and preparation of schools, and school setting implementation, and included all the direct costs on human and material resources. PHS-pro total costs were estimated as 7915.53€/year with an intervention cost of 36.14€/year/child attending the programme. This is much lower than the direct costs for treating an obese adult in Portugal, which was calculated as 3849.15€/year. A scale-up costing projection for implementing the PHS-pro to a larger young population was estimated to be even lower: 18.18€/year/child. This cost-consequence analysis provided evidence that the PHS-pro was economically feasible especially if compared with the medical costs for treating adult obesity. The PHS-pro can be a beneficial investment and may give a promising contribution to addressing overweight over childhood and adolescence, which are developmental stages that determine adulthood chronic diseases.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".