Acta Scientific Orthopaedics (ISSN: 2581-8635)

Research Article Volume 5 Issue 9

Physical Activity Program Can Mitigate Public Health Expenses with Hospitalization for Osteoporotic Femur Fractures: An Econometric analysis of Health Gym Program - Brazil

Flávio Renato Barros da Guarda1*, Rafaela Niels da Silva2-4, Kátia Elaine de Vasconcelos e Silva4 and Luiza Feitosa Cordeiro de Souza2,4

1Department of Public Health, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

2Postgraduate Program (PhD) in Therapeutic Innovation, Center for Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

3Physical Education Department, Tabosa de Almeida University Center, Faculty ASCES, Brazil

4Study Group on Health, Sport and Leisure Policies, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil

*Corresponding Author: Flávio Renato Barros da Guarda, Department of Public Health, Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil.

Received: May 26, 2022; Published: August 29, 2022

Abstract

Objective: This paper aimed to evaluate the impact of the Health Gym Program on public health expenses with hospital admissions for osteoporotic femur fractures in the state of Pernambuco, Brazil.

Method: This public policy impact evaluation had used econometric modeling which combined the Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-difference with fixed effects. Data referring to the population over 50 years old were collected in official databases and contain demographic, socioeconomic, and health care information to the 185 municipalities in Pernambuco for the period from 2009 to 2019. Pre- and post-estimation tests were carried out in order to verify the fulfillment of the estimators' assumptions and the robustness of the models used.

Result: There were 37,334 hospitalizations for osteoporotic femur fracture in the state of Pernambuco in the period from 2009 to 2019 and the cost of these hospitalizations was US$ 2,102,565.12 (annual average = US$ 175,213.76). It represented 1.65% of expenses with all hospital admissions during the study period. The municipalities that implemented the Health Gym Program spent, on average, 16.54% less on hospitalizations for osteoporotic femur fractures than those that did not adhere to this intervention (ATET = - 0.1654; EP = 0.081) and this result was statistically significant at the 5% level.

Conclusion: The Health Gym Program impacted by reducing public spending on hospital admissions for osteoporotic femur fractures when comparing the municipalities that implemented this intervention with those that did not.

 

Keywords: Osteoporosis; Physical Activity; Health Evaluation; Economic Analysis; Chronic Disease; Health Economics

References

  1. LOOKER AC., et al. “Prevalence and trends in low femur bone density among older US adults: NHANES 2005-2006 compared with NHANES III”. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 25 (2010): 64-71.
  2. YANG YJ and KIM J. “Factors in relation to bone mineral density in Korean middle-aged and older men: 2008-2010 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey”. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 64 (2014): 50-59.
  3. PEREIRA MM., et al. “Interleucina-6, capacidade funcional e qualidade de vida em homens idosos com baixa massa óssea praticantes de Tai Chi Chuan”. Revista Brasileira de Ciência e Movimento3 (2011): 23-28.
  4. PINHEIRO MM., et al. “O impacto da osteoporose no Brasil: dados regionais das fraturas em homens e mulheres adultos - The Brazilian Osteoporosis Study (BRAZOS)”. Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 2 (2010): 113-120.
  5. Van Staa TP., et al. “Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales”. Bone 29 (2001): 517-522.
  6. Office of the Surgeon G. “Reports of the Surgeon General: Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): Office of the Surgeon General (US) (2004).
  7. Rima Aziziyeh., et al. “The burden of osteoporosis in four Latin American countries: Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina”. Journal of Medical Economics7 (2009): 638-644.
  8. Lopes JB., et al. “Osteoporotic fractures in the Brazilian community-dwelling elderly: prevalence and risk factors”. Journal of Clinical Densitometry 3 (2011): 359-366.
  9. BUDHIA S., et al. “Osteoporotic fractures: a systematic review of U.S. healthcare costs and resource utilization”. Pharmacoeconomics2 (2012): 147‐170.
  10. BRANDÃO CMR., et al. “Gastos públicos com medicamentos para o tratamento da osteoporose na pós-menopausa”. Revista de Saúde Pública 2 (2013): 390-402.
  11. SOUZA RD., et al. “Qualidade de vida do paciente portador de osteoporose”. FOCO: Caderno de Estudos e Pesquisas1 (2015): 25.
  12. Nikitovic M., et al. “Direct health-care costs attributed to hip fractures among seniors: a matched cohort study”. Osteoporosis International 24 (2013): 659-669.
  13. Hernlund E., et al. “Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the international osteoporosis foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA)”. Archives of Osteoporosis 8 (2013): 136.
  14. Burge R., et al. “Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025”. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 22 (2007): 465-475.
  15. Karademir G., et al. “Hip fractures in patients older than 75 years old: Retrospective analysis for prognostic factors”. International Journal of Surgery Pt A (2015): 101-104.
  16. Rosso F., et al. “Prognostic factors for mortality after hip fracture: Operation within 48 hours is mandatory”. Injury4 (2016): S91-S97.
  17. Marinho., et al. “The burden of osteoporosis in Brazil”. Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia and Metabologia5 (2022): 434-443.
  18. Farias., et al. “Evaluation of the effectiveness of a care program for elderly patients with hip fractures: a network strategy”. Revista Brasileira de Geriatria e Gerontologia05 (2017). 
  19. Pinheiro MB., et al. “Evidence on physical activity and osteoporosis prevention for people aged 65+ years: a systematic review to inform the WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour”. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 1 (2020): 150.
  20. Mello RL and Machado FP. “Physical Activity and fall prevention in older adults: a literature update”. Caderno Intersaberes17 (2020).
  21. Abu-Omar K., et al. “The cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions: A systematic review of reviews”. Preventive Medicine Reports 8 (2017): 72-78.
  22. Silva RN., et al. “Avaliabilidade do Programa Academia da Saúde no Município do Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil”. Caderno de Saúde Pública4 (2017): e00159415.
  23. Sá GBAR., et al. “O Programa Academia da Saúde como estratégia de promoção da saúde e modos de vida saudáveis: cenário nacional de implementação”. Ciência and Saúde Coletiva6 (2016): 1849-1859.
  24. Guarda FRB., et al. “Caracterização das equipes do Programa Academia da Saúde e do seu processo de trabalho”. Revista Brasileira de Atividade Física and Saúde 6 (2015): 638-640.
  25. Simões EJ., et al. “Effectiveness of a scaled up physical activity intervention in Brazil: A natural experiment”. Preventive Medicine 103S (2016): S66-S72.
  26. Lima R de CF., et al. “Impacto do Programa Academia da Saúde sobre gastos com internações hospitalares por doenças cerebrovasculares”. Revista Brasileira de Atividade Física and Saúde 5 (2020).
  27. Heckman J., et al. “Characterizing selection bias using experimental data”. Econometrica 5 (1998): 1017-1098.
  28. Becker SO and Ichino A. “Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores”. The Stata Journal College Station4 (20002): 358-377.
  29. Austin PC. “Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies”. Pharmaceutical Statistics 2 (2011): 150-161.
  30. Blundell R and Dias MC. “Evaluation Methods for Non-Experimental Data”. Fiscal Studies 4 (2000): 427-468.
  31. Bertrand M., et al. “How Much Should We Trust Differences in Differences Estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics1 (2004): 249-275.
  32. CALIENDO M and KOPEINIG S. “Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching”. IZA, Discussion Paper 1588 (2005).
  33. Reyes C., et al. “Socioeconomic status and its association with the risk of developing hip fractures: a region-wide ecological study”. Bone 73 (2015): 127-131.
  34. Curtis EM., et al. “Epidemiology of fractures in the United Kingdom 1988-2012: Variation with age, sex, geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic status”. Bone 87 (2016): 19-26.
  35. Oliveira CM., et al. “Marked socioeconomic inequalities in hip fracture incidence rates during the Bone and Joint Decade (2000-2010) in Portugal: age and sex temporal trends in a population-based study”. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2016;70 (8): 755-763.
  36. Oliveira CM., et al. “The interactions between municipal socioeconomic status and age on hip fracture risk”. Osteoporosis International 2 (2015): 489-498.
  37. Wooldridge JM. “Introdução à Econometria: uma abordagem moderna”. 3rd São Paulo: Cengage Learning (2016).
  38. Khandker SR., et al. “Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices”. The World Bank (2010).
  39. Gertler PJ., et al. “Impact Evaluation in Practice”. 2ª edition. Washington, DC: Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento e Banco Mundial (2018).
  40. CAMERON AC., et al. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors”. The Review of Economics and Statistics3 (2008): 414-427.
  41. ANGRIST JD and PISCHKE JS. “Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion”. Princeton University Press (2008).
  42. Barros LABC., et al. “Endogeneity in panel data regressions: methodological guidance for corporate finance researchers”. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios 22 (2020): 437-461.
  43. Greene W. “Econometric Analysis”. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  44. Baum CF. “Residual diagnostics for cross-section time series regression models”. The Stata Journal1 (2001): 101-104.
  45. HOECHLE D. “Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence”. The Stata Journal3 (2007): 281-312.
  46. WILKINS Arjun S. “To Lag or Not to Lag? Re-evaluating the use of lagged dependent variables in regression analysis”. Stanford University. In: Political Science Research and Methods (2015).
  47. MALANI A and REIF J. “Interpreting pre-trends as anticipation: Impact on estimated treatment effects from tort reform”. Journal of Public Economics 124 (2015): 1-17.
  48. Bortolon P., et al. “O perfil das internações do SUS para fratura osteoporótica de fêmur em idosos no Brasil: uma descrição do triênio 2006-2008”. Cadernos de Saúde Pública 4 (2011): 733-742.
  49. STOCK JH and MARK W Watson. “Heteroskedasticity-Robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression”. Econometrica 1 (2008): 155-174.
  50. Denizar Vianna Araújo DV., et al. “Custo da Fratura Osteoporótica de Fêmur no Sistema Suplementar de Saúde Brasileiro”. Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia and Metabologia 6 (2005): 897-901.
  51. Clynes MA., et al. “The epidemiology of osteoporosis”. British Medical Bulletin1 (2020): 105-117.
  52. Baccaro LF., et al. “The epidemiology and management of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a viewpoint from Brazil”. Clinical Interventions in Aging 10 (2015): 583-591.

Citation

Citation: Flávio Renato Barros da Guarda., et al. “Physical Activity Program Can Mitigate Public Health Expenses with Hospitalization for Osteoporotic Femur Fractures: An Econometric analysis of Health Gym Program - Brazil" Acta Scientific Orthopaedics 5.9 (2022): 115-125.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Flávio Renato Barros da Guarda., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate33%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days

Indexed In



News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is May 30, 2024.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of "Best Article of the Issue"
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.

Contact US