東華大學圖書館 |

A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study./
作者:	Wilson, Mary Jones.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	149 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-06B.
標題:	Public health. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28647211
ISBN:	9798496512190

A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study.
Wilson, Mary Jones.

A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 149 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Carolina, 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

PURPOSEHistorically, African Americans (AA) have been underrepresented in nutrition-related behavioral research despite their disproportionate higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The Nutritious Eating with Soul (NEW Soul) Study is one of the first of its kind to recruit an AA only study group to examine CVD prevention via a clinical trial to examine changes in CVD risk factors across two cohorts who are randomly assigned to a plant-based, soul food vegan diet or low-fat omnivorous (omni) diet. The purpose of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is to inform clinical and policy decisions and the costs of interventions that society is willing to pay for. However, few studies have examined the cost effectiveness of behavioral interventions for AA adults. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the nutrition and behavior change interventions of the NEW Soul Study, from a societal perspective, by examining direct costs to deliver the intervention, and indirect costs reported by participants associated with intervention adherence.METHODSPrimary data were collected from AA adults (n=105) between the ages of 18-65 from the Midlands SC region, who enrolled in the NEW Soul Study, across two cohorts, and were identified as having overweight or obesity (BMI 25-49.9 kg/m2). Upon completion of baseline assessment of weight, and other laboratory measures, participants were randomized to follow a vegan or low-fat omni diet. A cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of this randomized control trial is based on one-year outcomes collected in April 2019 for Cohort 1 and June-July 2020 for Cohort 2. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) over the one-year study period was calculated based on the intervention (direct) and societal (indirect) costs and weight loss. Total Costs = Costs to deliver the intervention (ingredients for cooking demonstrations, meals) + participants' average cost of weekly groceries + average weekly costs of dining out. Quality adjusted life year (QALY) was calculated based on Short Form-12 survey responses that were collected at baseline and one year. Variations in weight loss between cohorts 1 and 2 before COVID-19 and during COVID-19 were assessed using a difference-in-difference (DD) study design.RESULTSThe incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $2,888.57 per pound of weight loss. The results fall within quadrant II of the cost effectiveness plane which indicates that the vegan diet group, as compared to the omni diet group was more cost effective, as participants in that diet group experienced greater weight loss in addition to the intervention costing less. Results from the least squares means estimate from DD models (adjusted for covariates) reveal that both diet groups experienced some gains in QALY from baseline to 12 months (omni baseline = 0.7889; omni 12 months= 0.804; vegan baseline =0.8027; vegan 12 months = 0.808), however there was no statistically significant DD in QALY between diet groups (Pr > |t| = 0.6485). Pre-COVID, Cohort 1 participants lost an average of 10.2 pounds at 12 months from baseline. During COVID, Cohort 2 participants lost an average of 3.7 pounds at 12 months from baseline. The difference-in-differences in weight loss pre-COVID and during COVID by diet group revealed a statistically significant change in weight loss at 12 months compared to baseline between cohorts 1 and 2 for the vegan diet group (p=0.0408). Pre-COVID (C1), the vegan diet group lost an average of 11 pounds. During COVID (C2), the vegan diet group lost an average of 3.47 pounds.CONCLUSIONSThe vegan diet intervention produced clinically relevant weight loss at a lower cost and was therefore cost-effective. Both diet groups experienced similarly minimal gains in QALYs and the DD in QALYs between the vegan and omni groups was not statistically significant. DD analysis suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on participants' ability to achieve greater weight loss in Cohort 2 (compared to Cohort 1), and significantly inhibited weight loss of participants in the vegan diet group. ht loss.

ISBN: 9798496512190Subjects--Topical Terms:

534748
Public health.
Subjects--Index Terms:

African American

A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study.
LDR:05390nmm a2200409 4500 001 2346455
005 20230315102215.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 241004s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798496512190
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28647211
035 $a AAI28647211
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Wilson, Mary Jones. $3 3685550
245 1 0 $a A Cost Effectiveness Analysis of the Nutritious Eating With Soul Study.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 149 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-06, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Crouch, Elizabeth.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Carolina, 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a PURPOSEHistorically, African Americans (AA) have been underrepresented in nutrition-related behavioral research despite their disproportionate higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The Nutritious Eating with Soul (NEW Soul) Study is one of the first of its kind to recruit an AA only study group to examine CVD prevention via a clinical trial to examine changes in CVD risk factors across two cohorts who are randomly assigned to a plant-based, soul food vegan diet or low-fat omnivorous (omni) diet. The purpose of cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is to inform clinical and policy decisions and the costs of interventions that society is willing to pay for. However, few studies have examined the cost effectiveness of behavioral interventions for AA adults. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the nutrition and behavior change interventions of the NEW Soul Study, from a societal perspective, by examining direct costs to deliver the intervention, and indirect costs reported by participants associated with intervention adherence.METHODSPrimary data were collected from AA adults (n=105) between the ages of 18-65 from the Midlands SC region, who enrolled in the NEW Soul Study, across two cohorts, and were identified as having overweight or obesity (BMI 25-49.9 kg/m2). Upon completion of baseline assessment of weight, and other laboratory measures, participants were randomized to follow a vegan or low-fat omni diet. A cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of this randomized control trial is based on one-year outcomes collected in April 2019 for Cohort 1 and June-July 2020 for Cohort 2. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) over the one-year study period was calculated based on the intervention (direct) and societal (indirect) costs and weight loss. Total Costs = Costs to deliver the intervention (ingredients for cooking demonstrations, meals) + participants' average cost of weekly groceries + average weekly costs of dining out. Quality adjusted life year (QALY) was calculated based on Short Form-12 survey responses that were collected at baseline and one year. Variations in weight loss between cohorts 1 and 2 before COVID-19 and during COVID-19 were assessed using a difference-in-difference (DD) study design.RESULTSThe incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $2,888.57 per pound of weight loss. The results fall within quadrant II of the cost effectiveness plane which indicates that the vegan diet group, as compared to the omni diet group was more cost effective, as participants in that diet group experienced greater weight loss in addition to the intervention costing less. Results from the least squares means estimate from DD models (adjusted for covariates) reveal that both diet groups experienced some gains in QALY from baseline to 12 months (omni baseline = 0.7889; omni 12 months= 0.804; vegan baseline =0.8027; vegan 12 months = 0.808), however there was no statistically significant DD in QALY between diet groups (Pr > |t| = 0.6485). Pre-COVID, Cohort 1 participants lost an average of 10.2 pounds at 12 months from baseline. During COVID, Cohort 2 participants lost an average of 3.7 pounds at 12 months from baseline. The difference-in-differences in weight loss pre-COVID and during COVID by diet group revealed a statistically significant change in weight loss at 12 months compared to baseline between cohorts 1 and 2 for the vegan diet group (p=0.0408). Pre-COVID (C1), the vegan diet group lost an average of 11 pounds. During COVID (C2), the vegan diet group lost an average of 3.47 pounds.CONCLUSIONSThe vegan diet intervention produced clinically relevant weight loss at a lower cost and was therefore cost-effective. Both diet groups experienced similarly minimal gains in QALYs and the DD in QALYs between the vegan and omni groups was not statistically significant. DD analysis suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on participants' ability to achieve greater weight loss in Cohort 2 (compared to Cohort 1), and significantly inhibited weight loss of participants in the vegan diet group. ht loss.
590 $a School code: 0202.
650 4 $a Public health. $3 534748
650 4 $a African American studies. $3 2122686
650 4 $a Nutrition. $3 517777
653 $a African American
653 $a Cardiovascular disease
653 $a Cost effectiveness analysis
653 $a Dietary intervention
653 $a Economic analysis
653 $a Nutrition
690 $a 0573
690 $a 0570
690 $a 0296
710 2 $a University of South Carolina. $b Health Srv Policy/Mng. $3 3191236
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-06B.
790 $a 0202
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28647211