Table 3.

Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility (ICUR) ratios of the Active Plus intervention conditions

	Cost-effectiveness analysis			Cost-utility analysis
	Incremental costs a,b	Incremental MET-hours/week	ICER c	Incremental costs a,b	Incremental QALYs d	ICUR c
Intervention vs. control
Intervention as a whole	−174	3.8	−46e	−153	−0.002	101,169f
PB	−288	5.3	−55e	−315	−0.008	38,120f
PE	−464	5.0	−94e	−434	−0.001	405,892f
WB	318	3.0	108h	364	−0.001	440,164g
WE	−255	1.8	−139e	−211	0.004	−47,293e
Environment vs. basic
PE vs. PB	−176	−0.3	555h	−119	0.007	−16,516e
WE vs. WB	−573	−1.1	514h	−575	0.005	−108,851e
Print vs. Web
PB vs. WB	−606	2.3	−261e	−679	−0.007	91,336f
PE vs. WE	−209	3.1	−67e	−223	−0.006	40,426f

C = control group, PB = printed basic intervention, PE = printed environmental intervention, WB = Web-based basic intervention, WE = Web-based environmental intervention.

^aIn Euros; ^bdifferences in incremental costs for the ICER and ICUR occur due to differences in the number of participants for which MET-hours/week and QALYs were available; ^ccalculated according to the formula ICER (or ICUR) = (Costs_i-Costs_c)/(Effect_i-Effect_c); ^dBased on the Dutch algorithm for the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) scores; ^edominant; ^fdominant based on WTP = €20,000 (i.e. savings larger than WTP); ^gdominated; ^hpreferred intervention depends on WTP (unknown for PA).