Analytical approach:
The analysis was based on a single clinical study that was conducted in the study setting involving five general practitioner practices serving deprived communities (within Liverpool Primary Care Trust, UK). The time horizon was the six-month follow-up period of the trial. The authors stated the study perspective was that of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS).
Effectiveness data:
The evidence came from a single clinical study, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the use of lay health-trainers plus health promotion literature compared with health promotion literature alone. The trial randomised 114 individuals (adults aged 18 years and older) to control or intervention groups in a ratio of 2:1 in favour of the intervention group. Participants were followed up for six months. The main clinical effectiveness estimate was the change in resource use and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D).
Monetary benefit and utility valuations:
The source of utility valuation were responses to the EQ-5D by the participants in the trial (completed at baseline and six months), which were converted to societal utility estimates for the described health states using standard methodology.
Measure of benefit:
Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were used as the summary benefit measure.
Cost data:
The costs included: the recruitment, training, and supervision of lay health-trainers; delivery the intervention by lay health-trainers; and service use and medications of the participants. The sources of resource use included data collected during the trial from lay health-trainers and from participants using questionnaires. Prices were based on national unit costs. The price year was reported as the 2008/9 financial year. All costs were presented in UK £.
Analysis of uncertainty:
One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, with the results presented in text and tables.