Background: Despite the known benefits of healthy eating in childhood, few Australian childcare services provide food that is consistent with dietary guidelines. The effectiveness of a web-based menu planning intervention to increase childcare service provision of healthy foods and decrease provision of discretionary foods in long day-care services in Australia was assessed in a randomised controlled trial. Here we consider the costs, consequences, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the intervention using data collected within the trial. Methods: The prospective trial-based economic evaluation involved 54 childcare services across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Services were randomised to a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention involved access to a web-based menu planning and decision support tool and online resources. Effectiveness measures included mean number of food groups, overall menu and individual food group compliance with dietary guidelines, and mean servings of food groups at 12 months. Costs (reported in $AUD, 2017/18) were evaluated from both health sector and societal perspectives. The direct cost to support uptake of the intervention was calculated, as were costs to each childcare service. The incremental cost of the intervention was calculated as the net difference in the cost to undertake menu planning and review plus the direct cost of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) including uncertainty intervals were estimated for differences in costs and effects between intervention and control groups. A relative value index was calculated to determine overall value for money. Results: Over the 12 months of the trial, we calculated a difference in cost between usual practice and intervention groups of − $482 (95% UI − $859, − $56). While the measured increase in menu and food group compliance within the trial did not reach statistical significance, there were significant improvements in mean servings of fruit and discretionary food, represented in the cost-consequence analysis. The calculated relative value index of 1.1 suggests that the intervention returns acceptable value for money for the outcomes generated. Conclusion: Compared to usual practice, web-based programmes may offer an efficient and sustainable alternative for childcare services to improve the provision of healthy foods to children in their care. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000974404

The maternal diet influences the long-term health status of both mother and offspring. The current study aimed to compare dietary intakes of pregnant women compared to food and nutrient recommendations in the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (AGHE) and Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs). Usual dietary intake was assessed in a sample of women in their 3rd trimester of pregnancy attending antenatal outpatient clinics at John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, New South Wales (NSW). Dietary intake was measured using the Australian Eating Survey, a validated, semi-quantitative 120-item food frequency questionnaire. Daily food group servings and nutrient intakes were compared to AGHE and NRV targets. Of 534 women participating, none met the AGHE recommendations for all food groups. Highest adherence was for fruit serves (38%), and lowest for breads and cereals (0.6%). Only four women met the pregnancy NRVs for folate, iron, calcium, zinc and fibre from food alone. Current dietary intakes of Australian women during pregnancy do not align with national nutrition guidelines. This highlights the importance of routine vitamin and mineral supplementation during pregnancy, as intakes from diet alone may commonly be inadequate. Future revisions of dietary guidelines and pregnancy nutrition recommendations should consider current dietary patterns. Pregnant women currently need more support to optimise food and nutrient intakes.

Background: Implementation of antenatal clinical guideline recommendations for addressing maternal alcohol consumption is sub-optimal. There is a complete absence of evidence of the cost and cost-effectiveness of delivering practice change interventions addressing maternal alcohol consumption amongst women accessing maternity services. The study sought to determine the cost, cost-consequence and cost-effectiveness of developing and delivering a multi-strategy practice change intervention in three sectors of a health district in New South Wales, Australia. Methods: The trial-based economic analyses compared the costs and outcomes of the intervention to usual care over the 35-month period of the stepped-wedge trial. A health service provider perspective was selected to focus on the cost of delivering the practice change intervention, rather than the cost of delivering antenatal care itself. All costs are reported in Australian dollars ($AUD, 2019). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the effect of variation in intervention effect and costs. Results: The total cost of delivering the practice change intervention across all three sectors was $367,646, of which $40,871 (11%) were development costs and $326,774 (89%) were delivery costs. Labour costs comprised 70% of the total intervention delivery cost. A single practice change strategy, ‘educational meetings and educational materials’ contributed 65% of the delivery cost. Based on the trial’s primary efficacy outcome, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated to be $32,570 (95% CI: $32,566–$36,340) per percent increase in receipt of guideline recommended care. Based on the number of women attending the maternity services during the trial period, the average incremental cost per woman who received all guideline elements was $591 (Range: $329 - $940) . The average cost of the intervention per eligible clinician was $993 (Range: $640-$1928). Conclusion: The intervention was more effective than usual care, at an increased cost. Healthcare funders’ willingness to pay for this incremental effect is unknown. However, the strategic investment in systems change is expected to improve the efficiency of the practice change intervention over time. Given the positive trial findings, further research and monitoring is required to assess the sustainability of intervention effectiveness and whether economies of scale, or reduced costs of intervention delivery can be achieved without impact on outcomes. Trial registration: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, No. ACTRN12617000882325 (date registered: 16/06/2017).

Context: Improving maternal nutrition and promoting alcohol abstinence during pregnancy are key to reducing subsequent economic and social impacts. However, antenatal nutrition and alcohol interventions are underused, partly because economic evidence to support investment is limited. Objective: The purpose of this systematic literature review was to assess the extent to which economic evaluations have been applied to antenatal public health interventions, and implementation strategies addressing maternal nutrition and alcohol intake. Data Sources: Two separate systematic reviews were conducted to address the 2 stated aims. Both reviews adhered to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The searches were conducted using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, EconLit, CINAHL, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, accompanied by a handsearch of gray literature. Data Extraction: Review 1 returned 9599 records after duplicates were removed, from which 12 economic evaluations were included. Review 2 returned 136 records after duplicates were removed, with none eligible for inclusion. The articles included in review 1 comprised 10 economic evaluations of nutrition interventions and 2 evaluations of alcohol interventions. Data Analysis: Methodological quality was assessed using the Drummond 10-point quality checklist. Methodological quality was high, with variation in reporting practices and predominance of modeled evaluations. Results: Antenatal nutrition and alcohol interventions offer value for money and have potential to considerably reduce healthcare costs. No evidence regarding intervention implementation cost was identified. Conclusion: The current evidence base has important gaps that limit its value to decision makers. Incorporating health economic principles and methods into health promotion interventions will inform decisions about how to derive value from investment in healthcare.

Since the mid-2000s stepped care, a model of integrated healthcare delivery, has been promoted for offering accessible, effective and efficient services for individuals with mental health conditions. However, adoption of the model has not been widespread warranting additional investment by way of implementation strategies to encourage uptake. These strategies also require funding and their value for money should be assessed to inform decision making and practice. We conducted a review to better understand the extent to which the cost-effectiveness of stepped care has been evaluated (review i) and also to investigate whether economic evaluation has been applied to implementation strategies of stepped care services for anxiety and depression in developed (high income) countries and to chart their methods and outcomes (review ii). The searches were conducted in six electronic databases, grey literature and relevant journals. The search strategies returned two papers for reviews (i) and a single paper for review (ii). Despite stepped care models of integrated mental health service provision being promoted as optimal, there is limited knowledge surrounding the real-world cost-effectiveness of their application and clearly a need for good quality economic evaluations of integrated care that comply with international guidelines of good practice. There is even less information pertaining to the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of strategies designed to increase the uptake of these models.

Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care. High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.