Exact(2)
Evidence suggests that single health behaviour interventions were more effective at improving the targeted behaviours than multiple behaviour interventions [ 13].
The review found that ICERs for most face-to-face multiple behaviour interventions ranged from cost saving to €24,691 (2006 Euros; approximately £24,187 at 2011/2012 prices) per QALY.
Similar(58)
The ICER for full development and implementation of U@Uni (£22,844) falls towards the upper end of this range and the ICER for roll-out of U@Uni falls towards the lower end of the range, suggesting that an online multiple behaviour intervention can generate a similar ratio of costs to benefits as that generated by face-to-face interventions.
In this context, multiple-behaviour interventions could have a greater impact on public health than single-behaviour interventions [ 29, 30].
The presented evidence also underscores the need for multiple-behaviour interventions, targeting not only sexual behaviour but also substance use.
Further research is needed on development of effective multiple-behaviour interventions for this target group, which also must be tailored to the needs of specific subgroups such as HIV positive men [ 20, 31- 33] and HIV negative men, who are at greater risk for infections with HIV/STI [ 34].
As two major risk factors, tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption, are addressed simultaneously for one intervention group, the study could significantly add to the current knowledge of multiple behaviour change interventions [ 28].
We study how to offer multiple behaviour change interventions optimally.
There is a growing body of evidence supporting multiple behaviour change interventions which can be applied to addressing smoking cessation and drug use [ 30, 31].
Although multiple behaviour change interventions have shown potential for improving health, [ 16] evidence about their effectiveness remains limited, [ 18, 40] particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations [ 47].
Multiple behaviour change interventions among survivors of other cancers using personalised and tailored print materials have given promising results (Demark-Wahnefried et al., 2007).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com