<scp>Cost‐Effectiveness</scp> of <scp>Community‐Based</scp> Diet and Exercise for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis and Obesity or Overweight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Obesity exacerbates pain and functional limitation in persons with knee osteoarthritis (OA). In the Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities with Arthritis in North Carolina (WE‐CAN) study, a community‐based diet and exercise (D + E) intervention led to an additional 6 kg weight loss and 20% greater pain relief in persons with knee OA and body mass index (BMI) >27 kg/m2 relative to a group‐based health education (HE) intervention. We sought to determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of the usual care (UC), UC + HE, and UC + (D + E) programs, comparing each strategy with the “next‐best” strategy ranked by increasing lifetime cost. Methods We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model to project long‐term clinical and economic benefits of the WE‐CAN interventions. We considered three strategies: UC, UC + HE, and UC + (D + E). We derived cohort characteristics, weight, and pain reduction from the WE‐CAN trial. Our outcomes included quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results In a cohort with mean age 65 years, BMI 37 kg/m2, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score 38 (scale 0–100, 100 = worst), UC leads to 9.36 QALYs/person, compared with 9.44 QALYs for UC + HE and 9.49 QALYS for UC + (D + E). The corresponding lifetime costs are $147,102, $148,139, and $151,478. From the societal perspective, UC + HE leads to an ICER of $12,700/QALY; adding D + E to UC leads to an ICER of $61,700/QALY. Conclusion The community‐based D + E program for persons with knee OA and BMI >27kg/m2 could be cost‐effective for willingness‐to‐pay thresholds greater than $62,000/QALY. These findings suggest that incorporation of community‐based D + E programs into OA care may be beneficial for public health. image
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".