IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i17p6186-d404250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Is the Best Practice Method for Quantifying the Health and Economic Benefits of Active Transport?

Author

Listed:
  • Holger Möller

    (Injury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
    School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Fiona Haigh

    (Centre for Health Equity Training Research and Evaluation (CHETRE), School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
    Health Equity Research Development Unit (HERDU), School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
    Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia)

  • Rema Hayek

    (NSW Ministry of Health, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia)

  • Lennert Veerman

    (School of Medicine, Gold Coast campus, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 422, Australia)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify a best practice method to cost the health benefits of active transport for use in infrastructure planning in New South Wales, Australia. We systematically reviewed the international literature covering the concept areas of active transport and cost and health benefits. Original publications describing a method to cost the health benefits of active transport, published in 2000–2019 were included. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed against criteria identified in interviews with key government stakeholders. A total of 2993 studies were identified, 53 were assessed for eligibility, and 19 were included in the review. The most commonly studied active transport modes were cycling ( n = 8) and walking and cycling ( n = 6). Exposures considered were physical activity, road transport related injuries and air pollution. The most often applied economic evaluation method was cost benefit analysis ( n = 8), and costs were commonly calculated by monetising health outcomes. Based on evaluation of models against the criteria, a Multistate Life Table model was recommended as the best method currently available. There is strong and increasing interest in quantifying and costing the health benefits of active transport internationally. Incorporating health-related economic benefits into existing regulatory processes such as cost benefit analyses could provide an effective way to encourage the non-health sector to include health impacts in infrastructure measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Möller & Fiona Haigh & Rema Hayek & Lennert Veerman, 2020. "What Is the Best Practice Method for Quantifying the Health and Economic Benefits of Active Transport?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-16, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6186-:d:404250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6186/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6186/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Barendregt & Gerrit Van Oortmarssen & Ben Van Hout & Jacqueline M. Van Den Bosch & Luc Bonneux, 1998. "Coping with multiple morbidity in a life table," Mathematical Population Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 29-49.
    2. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    3. Cristina Taddei & Roberto Gnesotto & Silvia Forni & Guglielmo Bonaccorsi & Andrea Vannucci & Giorgio Garofalo, 2015. "Cycling Promotion and Non-Communicable Disease Prevention: Health Impact Assessment and Economic Evaluation of Cycling to Work or School in Florence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-22, April.
    4. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    5. Bellavance, Franois & Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2009. "The value of a statistical life: A meta-analysis with a mixed effects regression model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 444-464, March.
    6. Linda J Cobiac & Theo Vos & Jan J Barendregt, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Physical Activity: A Modelling Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-11, July.
    7. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    8. Henry Zheng & Fred Ehrlich & Janaki Amin, 2010. "Economic evaluation of the direct healthcare cost savings resulting from the use of walking interventions to prevent coronary heart disease in Australia," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 187-201, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karina A. Rus & Ștefan Dezsi & Ovidiu R. Ciascai, 2023. "Transformative Experiences in Cycling Tourism: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Ovidiu R. Ciascai & Ștefan Dezsi & Karina A. Rus, 2022. "Cycling Tourism: A Literature Review to Assess Implications, Multiple Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Future Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, July.
    3. Myung Ja Kim & C. Michael Hall, 2022. "Application of EMGB to Study Impacts of Public Green Space on Active Transport Behavior: Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-27, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joan Mendivil & Marilena Appierto & Susana Aceituno & Mercè Comas & Montserrat Rué, 2019. "Economic evaluations of screening strategies for the early detection of colorectal cancer in the average-risk population: A systematic literature review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    3. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    5. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Boshen Jiao & Anirban Basu & Joshua Roth & M. Bender & Ilsa Rovira & Traci Clemons & Dalyna Quach & Scott Ramsey & Beth Devine, 2021. "The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Sickle Cell Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(11), pages 1225-1241, November.
    7. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    9. Finkelstein, Eric A. & Bilger, Marcel & Baid, Drishti, 2019. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of incentives as a tool for prevention of non-communicable diseases: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 340-350.
    10. J Lennert Veerman & Jan J Barendregt & Megan Forster & Theo Vos, 2011. "Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacotherapy to Reduce Obesity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-8, October.
    11. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Donald Fejfar & Emily Pak & Michelle Cawley & Jamie Bartram, 2021. "Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    12. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Alexander V van Schoonhoven & Judith J Gout-Zwart & Marijke J S de Vries & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Evgeni Dvortsin & Pepijn Vemer & Job F M van Boven & Maarten J Postma, 2019. "Costs of clinical events in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in the Netherlands: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Nikita M. John & Stuart J. Wright & Sean P. Gavan & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "The role of information provision in economic evaluations of non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1123-1131, November.
    15. Christian Kromer & Daniel Celis & Diana Sonntag & Wiebke K Peitsch, 2018. "Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Paul Stolee & Don Juzwishin & Don Husereau, 2018. "Economic evaluations of eHealth technologies: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-11, June.
    17. Habibollah Arefian & Monique Vogel & Anja Kwetkat & Michael Hartmann, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Prevention of Hospital Acquired Infections: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. Brigid M Gillespie & Claudia Bull & Rachel Walker & Frances Lin & Shelley Roberts & Wendy Chaboyer, 2018. "Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Stephen Mac & Sara R da Silva & Beate Sander, 2019. "The economic burden of Lyme disease and the cost-effectiveness of Lyme disease interventions: A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Wolf Rogowski & Wolfram Elsner, 2021. "How economics can help mitigate climate change - a critical review and conceptual analysis of economic paradigms," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2106, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6186-:d:404250. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.