Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of school-based health promotion programmes for chronic disease prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While school-based health prevention programmes are effective in addressing unhealthy diet and physical inactivity, little is known about their economic implications. We conducted an economic evaluation of the programmes that were previously identified as feasible, acceptable, and sustainable in the Canadian context. METHODS: This study builds on a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of feasible, acceptable, and sustainable school-based health promotion programmes. A micro-simulation model incorporated intervention effects on multiple risk factors to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of comprehensive school health (CSH), multicomponent, and physical education (PE) curriculum modification programmes. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the programme costs below which the programme would be cost-effective at a CA$50 000 threshold level. RESULTS: The estimated costs below which interventions were cost-effective per quality-adjusted life year gained were CA$682, CA$444, and CA$416 per student for CSH, multicomponent, and PE curriculum modification programmes, respectively. CSH programmes remained cost-effective per year of chronic disease prevented for costs of up to CA$3384 per student, compared to CA$1911 and CA$1987 for multicomponent and PE curriculum modification interventions, respectively. If the interventions were implemented at total discounted intervention costs of CA$100 per student, ROI through the avoidance of direct healthcare costs related to the treatment and management of chronic diseases would be 824% for CSH, 465% for multicomponent interventions, and 484% for PE curriculum modification interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas each examined intervention types showed favourable economic benefits, CSH programmes appeared to be the most cost-effective and to have the highest ROI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".