You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Evidence-based practice
Protocol
Healthcare use and costs associated with obesity in Badalona, Spain: a study protocol
  1. Antonio Sicras-Mainar1,
  2. Joan Gil2,
  3. Toni Mora3,
  4. Ruth Navarro-Artieda4,
  5. Joan Ayma5
  1. 1Badalona Serveis Assistencials SA, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
  2. 2Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Barcelona, Spain
  3. 3Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
  4. 4Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
  5. 5Hospital Municipal de Badalona, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Dr Antonio Sicras-Mainar; asicras{at}bsa.cat

Abstract

Introduction The objectives of the study are twofold. First, to calculate healthcare resource utilisation and costs for a cohort of adult overweight and obese patients observed in primary and hospital care centres during eight consecutive years (2003–2010) in an urban setting in Spain. An analysis of whether these costs vary by groups of individuals and types of disease, and of how they compare with the previous literature, is carried out in order to predict actions or policies for resource optimisation. The second objective is to estimate the impact of overweight and obesity on the consumption of resources and costs, accounting for a wide array of controls.

Methods and analysis Observational and retrospective cohort data are used, consisting of medical records of patients followed up in outpatient and hospital care facilities during the years 2003–2010. Three cohorts of patients are analysed: normal weight (18.5≥ body mass index (BMI) <25), overweight (25≥ BMI <30) and obese (BMI ≥30); BMI is computed using clinical information. Individual-level data on comorbidity, resource utilisation and costs are available, and external information provided by the population census regarding socioeconomic status is used. Utilisation and associated costs across BMI groups are compared by computing ratios for overweight and obese individuals relative to those of normal weight. Count data regression models (hurdle and finite mixture models) are used, together with two-part model regression models and taking into account the panel structure of the data set to explore the impact of overweight and obesity on the increased utilisation of health services and costs, accounting for a wide set of controls.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.u-pec.fr/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000547

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Article summary

    Article focus

    • To assess the magnitude of the incremental use of healthcare resources and their associated costs for a population of adult overweight and obese patients compared with normal weight individuals observed in primary care and hospital facilities over a period of eight consecutive years (2003–2010).

    • To explore the impact of overweight and obesity on the consumption of resources and costs, accounting for a wide array of controls.

    Key messages

    • Obesity is the accumulation of excessive fat in the body. Its prevalence has tripled in Europe over the last two decades, and it is estimated that 150 million adults and 15 million children and adolescents in the region are obese.

    • As a consequence of its high prevalence and association with multiple chronic illnesses, obesity tends to substantially increase healthcare resource utilisation and costs.

    • Some authors report that the cost of obesity could reach 7% of total healthcare expenditure in Spain. Within this strand of literature, another set of papers estimates medical costs and obesity based on survey data.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • The resulting study population included approximately 112 000 individuals (50.48% women; mean age 42.7 years).

    • Possible limitations of the study relate to the categorisation of diseases, the possible bias in patient classification, the selection of therapeutic groups, the extent of operating costs attributable to the information system, the potential impact of disease under-reporting, the variability of professional practice and information biases related with retrospective observational data.

    Background

    Obesity is the accumulation of excessive fat in the body. Its prevalence has tripled in Europe over the last two decades, and it is estimated that 150 million adults and 15 million children and adolescents in the region are obese.1 A similar trend is observed in the USA, and Spain is likewise no exception, with an estimated 37.8% (15.6%) of Spanish adults being overweight (obese).2 For the EU15, annual deaths attributable to overweight were 7.7%, ranging from 5.8% in France to 8.7% in the UK. One of every 13 deaths per year produced in the European Union is probably related to excess weight.3 4

    Although obesity is considered a multifactorial chronic disease linked to genetic, perinatal, socioeconomic and other factors, it is primarily the consequence of an energy imbalance.5–8 The epidemic is a major public health concern as it is a key risk factor for a range of chronic conditions (ie, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, heart disease, stroke, narcolepsy, osteoarthritis, asthma, apnoea, gout and certain cancers), which tend to reduce quality of life and ultimately cause death.9 10 In addition, most of these patients suffer from mental disorders and perceived social rejection leading to loss of self-esteem, a particularly sensitive concern in children.11

    As a consequence of its high prevalence and association with multiple chronic illnesses, obesity tends to substantially increase healthcare resource utilisation and costs. Two different approaches may be identified in the literature for analysing the relationship between obesity and healthcare costs. First, there are those studies that present estimates of the direct costs of obesity at the national level. For instance, it is estimated that the proportion of national healthcare expenditure attributable to obesity ranges from 5.3% to 7.0% for the USA12–17 and from 0.7% to 2.6% for other countries.18 However, some authors report that the cost of obesity could reach 7% of total healthcare expenditure in Spain.19 Within this strand of literature, another set of papers estimates medical costs and obesity based on survey data.20–25

    The second approach takes a lifetime perspective based on retrospective databases or medical record reviews and aims to estimate the impact of body mass index (BMI) categories on use of resources and direct costs for a set of related diseases. Most of these studies are drawn from US data,26–35 with very few referring to other national contexts.36–38 When production losses, reduced labour productivity, higher rates of work disability and lower salaries (due to problems of absenteeism, fewer job promotions or patterns of social exclusion) are added to healthcare costs, the obesity epidemic accounts for a larger fraction of GDP.39 40

    Objectives

    The objectives of the study are twofold. First, to assess the magnitude of the incremental use of healthcare resources and their associated costs for a population of adult overweight and obese patients compared with normal weight individuals observed in primary care and hospital facilities over a period of eight consecutive years (2003–2010). An analysis of whether these additional costs vary by groups of individuals and types of disease, and of how they compare with previous related studies, is carried out in order to predict actions or policies for resource optimisation. The second objective is to explore the impact of overweight and obesity on the consumption of resources and costs, accounting for a wide array of controls.

    Methods/design

    Study design and population

    We use observational, longitudinal and retrospective data based on medical records of patients followed up in primary care and hospital facilities. The study population comprises patients from six primary care centres (Apenins-Montigalà, Morera-Pomar, Montgat-Tiana, Nova Lloreda, Progrés-Raval and Marti i Julià) and two reference hospitals (Hospital Municipal de Badalona and Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol), serving >110 000 inhabitants in the north-eastern area of Barcelona. This population is mostly urban, of lower-middle socioeconomic status and from a predominantly industrial context.

    The study includes all patients aged 18 years and over who were seen from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2010 and who were regularly assigned to the above-mentioned healthcare centres during the study period. We exclude subjects who were transferred or moved to other centres, patients from other areas or regions. The resulting study population included approximately 112 000 individuals (50.48% women; mean age 42.7 years).

    Data

    Overweight and obesity are assessed for each patient through the BMI (kilograms per square metre), computed from measured weight and height, and three cohorts are distinguished: normal weight (18.5≥ BMI <25), overweight (25≥ BMI <30) and obese (BMI ≥30). Given that not all patients were measured annually, we will need to assume BMI stability over the analysed period. That is, BMI will be imputed for those individuals with a small number of measurements and interpolated when having partial information. Mirroring previous literature, the measures for the utilisation of healthcare resources analysed in this study are medical visits (primary care, specialist care and emergency visits), the number and duration of hospital visits, laboratory and radiology tests, diagnostic or therapeutic tests, referrals and drug prescriptions defined annually. We hypothesize that the consumption of resources and medical costs incurred by overweight and obese patients differ from those of normal weight patients.

    As for chronic conditions, the number of health problems per patient/year (mean episodes/patient) is considered as a process of care comparable to a disease diagnosis. According to the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2), we account for a wide set of conditions related to overweight and obesity: hypertension (K86, K87), diabetes mellitus (T89, T90), dyslipidaemia (T93), smoking (P17), alcoholism (P15, P16), all types of organic failures (heart, liver and kidney), stroke/cerebrovascular accident (K90), cerebrovascular disease (K91), pulmonary embolism (K93), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (R95, chronic airflow obstruction), bronchial asthma (R96), dementia or memory disorders (P70, P20), neurological diseases (Parkinson's disease (N87), epilepsy (N88), multiple sclerosis (N86) and other neurological diseases (N99)), depression (P76) and malignant neoplasms (all types, A79, B72–75, D74–78, F75, H75, K72, L71, L97, N74–76, R84–86, T71–73, U75–79, W72–73, X75–81, Y77–79). The data set will collect information on all diseases associated with each patient.

    To compute comorbidity for each treated patient, we use two indices: (1) the Charlson comorbidity index41 as a proxy for patient acuity and (2) the individual case-mix index obtained from the ‘Adjusted Clinical Groups’ (ACG), a patient classification system for iso-consumption of resources.42 A task force consisting of five professionals (a document administrator, two clinicians and two technical consultants) will be set up to convert (map) the ICPC-2 episodes to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9-CM). The criteria used will vary depending on whether the relationship between the codes is null (one to none), univocal (one to one) or multiple (one to many). The operational algorithm of the Grouper ACG® Case-Mix System consists of a series of consecutive steps to obtain the 106 mutually exclusive ACG groups, one for each patient. The application of ACG provides the resource utilisation bands so that each patient, depending on his/her overall morbidity, is grouped into one of five mutually exclusive categories (1: healthy users or very low morbidity; 2: low morbidity; 3: moderate morbidity; 4: high morbidity and 5: very high morbidity).

    The data set includes other relevant information for the empirical analysis, such as the patient's age, gender, employment status (active/retired), place of birth and habitual residence, date of admission and discharge, type of healthcare professionals contacted and reason for the visit. Likewise, we include other confounding factors such as smoking and drinking status among others. In addition, data retrieved from the population census will allow us to consider other socioeconomic information, such as the distance from the current place of residence to the healthcare centre, educational level and marital status. Finally, an ID variable will capture information regarding other household individuals related to the patient.

    Model of use of resources and costs

    The design of the costs system is defined by taking into account the characteristics of the organisation, reporting requirements and the degree of development of the available information systems. The cost per treated patient during the study period is taken as the unit of measurement. The adaptation (conciliation or depuration) of incurred expenditures from the Profit and Loss Statement (Financial Accounting) to the costs of Analytical Accounting is carried out in two stages: (1) the conversion of natural expenditures into costs and (2) the allocation and classification of costs. Those expenditures not directly related to care (eg, financial spending, losses due to fixed assets, etc) are excluded from the analysis. Depending on volume of activity, we consider two types of costs: fixed or semi-fixed costs and variable costs. The former include personnel (wages and salaries, indemnifications and social security contributions paid by the company), consumption of goods (medicines, intermediate products, health material and instruments), expenditures related to external services (cleaning and laundry), structure (building repair and conservation, clothes and office material) and management of healthcare centres, according to the Spanish General Accounting Plan for Healthcare Centres. Variable costs are those related to diagnostic and therapeutic tests and referrals.

    More specifically, the concepts analysed are (1) complementary tests, including (a) laboratory tests (haematology, biochemistry, serology and microbiology: average cost per request), (b) conventional radiology (plain films requests, contrast radiology, ultrasound scans, mammograms and radiographs: expenditure per request) and (c) complementary tests (endoscopy, electromyography, spirometry, CT, densitometry, perimetry, stress testing, echocardiography, etc: expenditure per request); (2) pharmaceutical prescriptions (acute, chronic or on demand: retail price per package at the time of prescription) and (3) referrals made to referenced specialists or to hospital centres on either an ordinary or emergency basis. From semi-fixed costs, we derive an estimation of the average cost per medical visit. Table 1 shows an estimate of the resulting rates for the years 2003 and 2009.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Estimates of unitary costs per patient in 2003 and 2009

    The different unitary cost rates used in the calculations are derived from cost accounting carried out by primary healthcare and hospital centres for the available years, from invoices of intermediate products issued by different providers and from prices set by CatSalut (Catalan Health Service). Therefore, total medical cost per patient in each period will be calculated as semi-fixed costs (average cost per visit multiplied by the number of medical visits) plus variable costs. In this study, we do not account for the computation of ‘out-of-pocket payments’ paid by the patient or family that are not registered in the database. Healthcare costs will be adjusted for each period according to the Consumer Price Index.

    Statistical analysis

    We begin the statistical analysis by carefully reviewing our data set through a series of exploratory analyses in order to detect possible mistakes in coding. Descriptive and univariate statistical analyses are also performed regarding the main variables of interest, while the presence of outliers is detected by means of ad-hoc techniques (Hadi method) or graphical representation using box plots. Stochastic kernels are estimated in order to observe the characteristics of the distributions.

    Given the above-mentioned objectives, the statistical approach of the study is then divided in two stages. In the first stage, we calculate use and cost (total and by sub-categories) of the considered healthcare services, differentiating by BMI groups for the period 2003–2010. Annualised means are computed for each measure of interest. In order to compare resource utilisation and associated costs across BMI groups, we will compute ratios for overweight and obese individuals relative to those with normal weight.

    In the second stage, we use standard count data regression models (ie, hurdle and finite mixture models), together with a two-part regression models, taking into account the panel structure of the data set, to explore the impact of overweight and obesity on the utilisation of health services and costs, accounting for a wide set of controls. Sensitivity analysis is also performed based on thresholds that define overweight and obesity, levels of use of healthcare resources outside the extreme percentiles and the problems caused by ‘attrition’.43 44

    Study timeline

    Phases 1–2. Meeting to decide general planning of the study. Tasks will be assigned to investigators and informative meetings held with physicians from participating primary healthcare centres. Posterior follow-ups will be quarterly. A bibliographic and document search will be carried out and a structured summary drawn up. Time: 1 month.

    Phase 3. Preparation of the database and collection of patient variables (quantitative information).

    This includes (1) design and drawing up of a morbidity database (care episodes attended by patient/year), (2) design and drawing up of a pharmaceutical prescription database, (3) design and drawing up of a database covering healthcare services use and direct costs (laboratory, radiology, referrals and pharmaceutical prescription per patient/year) and (4) obtaining an ACG per patient/year. Time: 2 months.

    Phase 4. Validation of data quality. Verification of univariate results by ranges. Identification of inadequate categories. Time: 1 month.

    Phase 5. Data analysis, including: (1) statistical analysis: descriptive, bivariate and multivariate analysis and regression analyses and (2) interpretation of the results. Time: 2 months.

    Phase 6. Scientific diffusion of the results: this will include the writing and publication of the results obtained. Time: 1 year.

    Discussion

    No previous study on the calculation of healthcare use and costs according to BMI categories have been computed in Spain taking into account a longitudinal perspective. This protocol study aims to cover this gap.

    Among the strengths of the study, we can remark that we use population data, low cost based in electronic medical records and long follow-up information. Possible limitations of the study relate to the categorisation of diseases, the possible bias in patient classification, the selection of therapeutic groups, the extent of operating costs attributable to the information system, the potential impact of disease under-reporting, the variability of professional practice and information biases related with retrospective observational data. Further research is needed regarding cost-effectiveness and the delay in diagnosis and treatment, as well as to replicate the study in other healthcare organisations. Despite the success of care for patients with chronic diseases such as obesity, interventions should be based on multidisciplinary teams so as to promote effective interventions in which patients are highly engaged in self-care.

    Acknowledgments

    We thank the healthcare professionals from the centres included, without whose daily work the study would not be possible.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Berghöfer A,
      2. Pischon T,
      3. Reinhold T,
      4. et al
      . Obesity prevalence from a European perspective: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2008;8:200.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Aranceta-Bartrina J,
      2. Serra-Majem L,
      3. Foz-Sala M,
      4. et al
      ; Grupo Colaborativo SEEDO. Prevalencia de obesidad en España (In Spanish). Med Clin (Barc) 2005;125:460–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Banegas JR,
      2. López-García E,
      3. Gutiérrez-Fisac JL,
      4. et al
      . Simple estimate of mortality attributable to excess weight in the European Union. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003;57:201–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Flanders WD,
      2. Augestad LB
      . Adjusting for reverse causality in the relationship between obesity and mortality. Int J Obes (Lond) 2008;32(Suppl 3):S42–6.
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      World Health Organization. Obesity: Preventing and Management the Global Epidemic. Report of a WHO Consultation. Geneva: WHO, 1998.
    6. ↵
      1. Daniel M
      . Wanless warning: future of NHS hangs on obesity action. Health Serv J 2006;116:5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Stenholm S,
      2. Harris TB,
      3. Rantanen T,
      4. et al
      . Sarcopenic obesity: definition, cause and consequences. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2008;11:693–700.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Müller MJ,
      2. Bosy-Westphal A,
      3. Krawczak M
      . Genetic studies of common types of obesity: a critique of the current use of phenotypes. Obes Rev 2010;11:612–18.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Alberti KG,
      2. Eckel RH,
      3. Grundy SM,
      4. et al
      ; International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; International Association for the Study of Obesity. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation 2009;120:1640–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. López-Suárez A,
      2. Elvira-González J,
      3. Beltrán-Robles M,
      4. et al
      . Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and metabolic syndrome in over 50-year-olds in Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Spain (In Spanish). Rev Esp Cardiol 2008;61:1150–8.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Gariepy G,
      2. Nitka D,
      3. Schmitz N
      . The association between obesity and anxiety disorders in the population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond) 2010;34:407–19.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Wolf AM,
      2. Colditz GA
      . Current estimates of the economic costs of obesity in the United States. Obes Res 1998;6:97–106.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. ↵
      1. Finkelstein EA,
      2. Fiebelkorn IC,
      3. Wang G
      . National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: how much and who's paying? Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;(Suppl Web Exclusives):W3-219-6.
    14. ↵
      1. Finkelstein EA,
      2. Fiebelkorn IC,
      3. Wang G
      . State level estimates of annual medical expenditures attributable to obesity. Obes Res 2004;12:18–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Arterburn DE,
      2. Maciejewski ML,
      3. Tsevat J
      . Impact of morbid obesity on medical expenditures in adults. International J Obes 2005;29:334–9.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      1. Bhattacharya J,
      2. Bundorf MK
      . The incidence of the healthcare costs of obesity. J Health Econ 2009;28:649–58.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Tsai AG,
      2. Williamson DF,
      3. Glick HA
      . Direct medical cost of overweight and obesity in the USA: a quantitative systematic review. Obes Rev 2011;12:50–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Müller-Riemenschneider F,
      2. Reinhold T,
      3. Berghöfer A,
      4. et al
      . Health-economic burden of obesity in Europe. Eur J Epidemiol 2008;23:499–509.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Vazquez-Sanchez R,
      2. Lopez Alemany JM
      . Los costes de la obesidad alcanzan el 7% del gasto sanitario. Rev Esp Econ Salud 2002;1:40–2.
      OpenUrl
    20. ↵
      1. Sturm R
      . The effects of obesity, smoking, and drinking on medical problems and costs. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002;21:245–53.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Andreyeva T,
      2. Sturm R,
      3. Ringel JS
      . Moderate and severe obesity have large differences in health care costs. Obes Res 2004;12:1936–43.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Von Lengerke T,
      2. Happich M,
      3. Reitmeir P,
      4. et al
      ; KORA Study Group. Utilization of out- and inpatient health services by obese adults: a population-based study in the Augsburg Region, Germany. Gesundheitswesen 2005;67(Suppl 1):S150–7.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Von Lengerke T,
      2. Reitmeier P,
      3. John J
      . Direct medical costs of (severe) obesity: a bottom-up assessment of over- vs. normal weight adults in the KORA-study region (Augsburg, Germany) (In German). Gesundheitswesen 2006;68:110–15.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Detournay B,
      2. Fagnani F,
      3. Phillippo M,
      4. et al
      . Obesity morbidity and health care costs in France: an analysis of the 1991-1992 Medical Care Household Survey. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000;24:151–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Sander B,
      2. Bergemann R
      . Economic burden of obesity and its complications in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2003;4:248–53.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Thompson D,
      2. Brown JB,
      3. Nichols GA,
      4. et al
      . Body mass index and future healthcare costs: a retrospective cohort study. Obes Res 2001;9:210–18.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Thompson D,
      2. Edelsberg J,
      3. Colditz GA,
      4. et al
      . Lifetime health and economic consequences of obesity. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:2177–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Allison DB,
      2. Zannolli R,
      3. Narayan KM
      . The direct health care costs of obesity in the United States. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1194–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Finkelstein EA,
      2. Fiebelkorn IC,
      3. Wang G
      . The costs of obesity among full-time employees. Am J Health Promot 2005;20:45–51.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Quesenberry CP Jr.,
      2. Caan B,
      3. Jacobson A
      . Obesity, health services use and health care costs among members of a health maintenance organization. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:466–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      1. Raebel MA,
      2. Malone DC,
      3. Conner DA,
      4. et al
      . Health services use and health care costs of obese and nonobese individuals. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:2135–40.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Wee CC,
      2. Phillips RS,
      3. Legedza AT,
      4. et al
      . Health care expenditures associated with overweight and obesity among US adults: importance of age and race. Am J Public Health 2005;95:159–65.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Thorpe KE,
      2. Florence CS,
      3. Howard DH,
      4. et al
      . The impact of obesity on rising medical spending. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;(Suppl Web Exclusives):W4-480-6.
    34. ↵
      1. Wang F,
      2. Shulz AB,
      3. Musich S,
      4. et al
      . The relationship between National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute weight guidelines and concurrent medical costs in a manufacturing population. Am J Health Promot 2003;17:183–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. Lakdawalla DN,
      2. Goldman DP,
      3. Shang B
      . The health and cost consequences of obesity among the future elderly. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24(Suppl 2):W5R30–41.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Borg S,
      2. Persson U,
      3. Odegaard K,
      4. et al
      . Obesity, survival, and hospital costs-findings from a screening project in Sweden. Value Health 2005;8:562–71.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Nakamura K,
      2. Okamura T,
      3. Kanda H,
      4. et al
      ; Health Promotion Research Committee of the Shiga National Health Insurance Organizations. Medical costs of obese Japanese: a 10-year follow-up study of National Health Insurance in Shiga, Japan. Eur J Public Health 2007;17:424–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. van Baal PH,
      2. Polder JJ,
      3. de Wit GA,
      4. et al
      . Lifetime medical costs of obesity: prevention no cure for increasing health expenditure. PloS Med 2008;5:e29.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Popkin BM,
      2. Kim S,
      3. Rusev ER,
      4. et al
      . Measuring the full economic costs of diet, physical activity and obesity-related chronic diseases. Obes Rev 2006;7:271–93.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Branca F,
      2. Kolovou-Delonas V
      . Review of Cost-of-illness Studies on Obesity in Countries of the WHO European Region and Comparison with Other Countries. WHO Organisation, Regional Office for Europe.
    41. ↵
      1. Charlson ME,
      2. Pompei P,
      3. Ales KL,
      4. et al
      . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Weiner JP,
      2. Starfield BH,
      3. Steinwachs DM,
      4. et al
      . Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case-mix. Med Care 1991;29:452–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. d'Uva TB
      . Latent class models for utilisation of health care. Health Econ 2006;15:329–43.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    44. ↵
      1. Mihaylova B,
      2. Briggs A,
      3. O'Hagan A,
      4. et al
      . Review of statistical methods for analysing healthcare resources and costs. Health Econ 2011;20:897–916.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Footnotes

    • To cite: Sicras-Mainar A, Gil J, Mora T, et al. Healthcare use and costs associated with obesity in Badalona, Spain: a study protocol. BMJ Open 2012;2:000547. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000547

    • Funding This study did not receive any funding. Nor did it receive any help or support from any public or private establishment.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval The study protocol was approved by the Clinical Research and Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, in accordance with Spanish conventions. Confidentiality was respected at all times according to the Spanish data protection law (LO del 15/1999 de 13 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, LOPD).

    • Contributors AS-M, JG, TM, RN-A and JA drew up the study protocol and structured the literature search. All authors have read and accepted the latest version of the study protocol.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.