You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Research report
Direct healthcare costs of sedentary behaviour in the UK
  1. Leonie Heron1,
  2. Ciaran O'Neill1,
  3. Helen McAneney1,
  4. Frank Kee1,
  5. Mark A Tully2
  1. 1 Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  2. 2 School of Health Sciences, Ulster University, Newtownabbey, UK
  1. Correspondence to Leonie Heron, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Centre for Public Health, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK; lheron01{at}qub.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Growing evidence indicates that prolonged sedentary behaviour increases the risk of several chronic health conditions and all-cause mortality. Sedentary behaviour is prevalent among adults in the UK. Quantifying the costs associated with sedentary behaviour is an important step in the development of public health policy.

Methods National Health Service (NHS) costs associated with prolonged sedentary behaviour (≥6 hours/day) were estimated over a 1-year period in 2016–2017 costs. We calculated a population attributable fraction (PAF) for five health outcomes (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease [CVD], colon cancer, endometrial cancer and lung cancer). Adjustments were made for potential double-counting due to comorbidities. We also calculated the avoidable deaths due to prolonged sedentary behaviour using the PAF for all-cause mortality.

Results The total NHS costs attributable to prolonged sedentary behaviour in the UK in 2016–2017 were £0.8 billion, which included expenditure on CVD (£424 million), type 2 diabetes (£281 million), colon cancer (£30 million), lung cancer (£19 million) and endometrial cancer (£7 million). After adjustment for potential double-counting, the estimated total was £0.7 billion. If prolonged sedentary behaviour was eliminated, 69 276 UK deaths might have been avoided in 2016.

Conclusions In this conservative estimate of direct healthcare costs, prolonged sedentary behaviour causes a considerable burden to the NHS in the UK. This estimate may be used by decision makers when prioritising healthcare resources and investing in preventative public health programmes.

  • public health
  • sedentary behaviour
  • sitting time
  • cost analysis
  • health expenditure
  • healthcare cost
  • physical activity

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211758

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.

    Introduction

    Adults in the UK have become increasingly sedentary as modern technology has changed everyday life.1 Sedentary behaviour is distinct from physical inactivity and refers to sitting or lying while expending low amounts of energy (≤1.5 metabolic equivalents).2 National guidelines recommend minimising time spent sedentary3 without specifying how many hours/day of sitting might be harmful. A recent meta-analysis reported that spending 6–8 hours/day sedentary increases future risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.4 In this study, we defined sedentary behaviour as spending at least six hours of waking time sedentary. Thirty per cent of adults in the UK are sedentary for at least six hours/day during the week, which rises to 37% on the weekend.5 Consequently, many individuals in the UK are at greater risk of chronic disease.

    Sedentary behaviour is an established risk factor for several non-communicable diseases. Strong evidence suggests that high levels of sitting time lead to increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes and all-cause mortality (risk of mortality from all causes, not only those mentioned here).6 Additionally, moderate evidence indicates an increased risk of colon, endometrial and lung cancer.6 These diseases all contribute considerably to morbidity and mortality in the UK. Thus, addressing the problem of sedentary behaviour could potentially reduce the burden of disease.

    Awareness of the economic burden of sedentary behaviour could inform and motivate policymakers to address this risk factor. Estimates of the cost impacts allow decision makers to prioritise funding and make an economic argument for investment in prevention. Estimates for the financial impact of many lifestyle risk factors in the UK are available, such as obesity, smoking and physical inactivity7 8; however, none exists thus far for sedentary behaviour. As a result, this study aims to estimate the direct healthcare costs of prolonged sedentary behaviour in the UK.

    Methods

    Costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective (UK National Health Service [NHS]) using a prevalence-based and population attributable fraction (PAF) approach, following the methodology employed by Ding et al.7

    Quantifying the increased risk to health due to sedentary behaviour

    We selected the most suitable meta-analyses cited in a recent report of the relationship between sedentary behaviour and health6 in order to extract the relative risks (RRs). Appropriate studies employed a prospective design, non-diseased participants at baseline and adjusted for levels of physical activity in their statistical model. Furthermore, the researchers had investigated the association by comparing the most sedentary individuals with the least sedentary, and we preferred studies which had used sedentary time as an exposure. Two studies were appropriate for the outcome of CVD9 10: we chose the more recent meta-analysis by Pandey et al 10 as it had included three additional applicable studies. After examining data from the primary studies, we excluded those that did not meet the exact criteria above and repooled the risk estimate using Review Manager (RevMan V.5.3).

    Estimating the extent of sedentary behaviour in the UK population

    The Health Survey for England 20125 reported that 30% of adults in England spent at least six hours/day sedentary on weekdays and 37% of adults on weekends. We used these figures to estimate the percentage of UK adults who are sedentary on any given day of the week (Embedded Image ).

    The PAF formula we have used requires the prevalence of sedentary behaviour at baseline in those who went on to become cases (ie, experiencing the adverse outcome). This information is not readily available. Therefore, we calculated prevalence ‘adjustment factors’11 using data from cohort studies (table 1). We searched for cohort studies12–17 on PubMed that fitted the same criteria mentioned in the previous section and had specifically measured and reported sedentary behaviour for the total population and for cases only at baseline. We preferred European-based studies and larger studies with longer follow-up times to give more reliable adjustment factors. The proportion of cases in the highest reported category of sedentary behaviour was divided by the proportion of people at baseline in the highest category to produce an adjustment factor. For example, Stamatakis et al 12 reported that 34.1% of all study participants and 38.3% of diabetes cases were sedentary at baseline. The adjustment factor was 1.12 (38.3/34.1). We then multiplied the adjustment factor by the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in the general population in order to estimate the higher prevalence among cases.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Prevalence adjustment factors calculated from longitudinal study data

    Calculating PAFs for each health outcome

    The PAF estimates the contribution of a risk factor to the total burden of a disease in a given population. Here, PAFs estimate the reduction in disease that would occur if prolonged sedentary behaviour was eliminated. The following formula from Rockhill et al 18 was used:

    Embedded Image

    where p 1 is the prevalence of sedentary behaviour among cases and RR adj is the pooled adjusted RR, comparing the most sedentary individuals with the least sedentary.

    It integrates the pooled adjusted RR (RR adj) estimates and the proportion of sedentary individuals who became cases (p 1). It is appropriate to use when confounding is present.18 We calculated Wald CIs for each of the PAFs using Monte Carlo simulation methods (10 000 simulations) on Microsoft Excel (2016).19 These techniques accounted for random error and uncertainty in confounding from the pooled RR estimates and the prevalence of sedentary behaviour (see online supplementary file 1 for further details).

    Supplemental material

    Estimating NHS expenditure for each disease

    Healthcare budgets for specific disease groupings were available for the NHS in England for the nearest financial year 2012–2013,20 Wales for 2016–201721 and Scotland 2011–2012.22 Costs were standardised to year 2017 by adjusting costs for inflation using the hospital and community health services index, a weighted average of annual increases in pay and prices in healthcare services.23 Healthcare budget data for Northern Ireland were unavailable; thus, we estimated costs for this region based on the number of diagnoses compared with the rest of UK. Further details are reported in online supplementary file 2. All costs are in pounds sterling (£).

    Supplemental material

    Calculating costs attributable to sedentary behaviour

    We multiplied the adjusted PAFs and their 95% CIs by the total disease expenditure to estimate the NHS costs attributable to sedentary behaviour in the UK. Since the timeframe for this analysis is 1 year, discounting was unnecessary.

    Thirty per cent of Europeans with type 2 diabetes are also affected by CVD.24 Therefore, 30% of the type 2 diabetes expenditure attributable to sedentary behaviour was subtracted from the total costs to adjust for double-counting caused by this comorbidity. This is consistent with the approach used by Ding et al.7

    Estimating the avoidable deaths due to sedentary behaviour

    In addition, we multiplied the PAF for all-cause mortality by the total number of UK deaths in 2016 to estimate the number of deaths that would have been avoided if prolonged sedentary behaviour was completely eliminated. As complete elimination is unrealistic, the number of avoidable deaths was also estimated for 10%, 30% and 50% potential reductions in the proportion of sedentary individuals (ie, sedentary ≥6 hours/day).

    Results

    The health outcomes that we considered most relevant for this analysis were type 2 diabetes, CVD and all-cause mortality (strong evidence), and endometrial, colon and lung cancers (moderate evidence).6 Pooled analyses of crude or age-adjusted estimates were not available in the literature. The PAF formula given required a pooled risk estimate and so we extracted RRs from the least adjusted models and pooled them to give an unadjusted RR estimate. Most models were age-adjusted only; however, several of the least adjusted models were already adjusted for more variables. Crucially, none of the models had adjusted for physical activity level, an important confounder in the association between sitting time and health.25 Table 2 presents the prevalence of sedentary behaviour for each health outcome with the associated RRs and PAFs.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Estimates of prevalence, relative risk of disease and PAF for sedentary behaviour in the UK

    We repooled the adjusted RR for the association between sedentary behaviour and type 2 diabetes presented by Biswas et al 9 to exclude a cross-sectional study.26 The updated pooled RR estimate was 1.88 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.17). Based on the PAF calculations, 16.9% (95% CI 14.0% to 19.6%) of cases of type 2 diabetes were associated with sedentary behaviour. Pandey et al 10 reported an adjusted RR of 1.14 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.19) for the association between CVD and sedentary behaviour. Just under 5% (4.9%, 95% CI 4.2% to 5.5%) of CVD could be attributable to sedentary behaviour. The adjusted RR for the association between sedentary behaviour and all-cause mortality10 was reanalysed in order to exclude four studies. The studies were inappropriate for the following reasons: their baseline populations were not free of disease27; they reported a per-hour association,28 rather than comparing individuals in the most and least sedentary categories; the definition of prolonged sedentary behaviour was not compatible (≥4 hours instead of ≥6 hours)29; or they reported an inapplicable association (one study reported the association between those who were ‘consistently nonsedentary’ and ‘consistently sedentary’).30 The sedentary time definition that they used, reported ranges and estimated median sedentary time are reported in online supplementary file 3. The new pooled RR estimate was 1.25 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.33), and the corresponding PAF for this association was 11.6% (95% CI 10.3% to 12.9%). Shen et al 31 investigated the risk of cancer associated with higher sedentary behaviour. They reported adjusted RRs for lung cancer (1.27, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.52), colon cancer (1.30, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.49) and endometrial cancer (1.28, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.53). The PAF calculations showed that 7.5% (95% CI 3.9% to 11.0%) of lung cancer, 9.0% (95% CI 7.3% to 10.7%) of colon cancer and 8.0% (95% CI 6.0% to 10.0%) of endometrial cancer could be attributable to sedentary behaviour.

    Supplemental material

    If sedentary behaviour was eliminated in the UK, 69 276 deaths in 2016 might have been avoided. More realistically, if levels of sedentary behaviour were 10%, 30% or 50% lower in 2016, we might have avoided 6928, 17 319, or 34 638 deaths, respectively.

    It is also important to note that the estimated total budgets adjusted for inflation to 2016/2017 costs were considerably lower than the actual reported total budgets for 2016/2017 for England32 and Scotland.33 Healthcare budgets for individual diseases were not available for these years and so costs had to be inflated. Table 3 provides the NHS costs attributable to sedentary behaviour and 95% CIs. CVD is associated with the greatest cost attributable to sedentary behaviour of £424 million (£367 to £480 million), followed by £281 million (£233 to £327 million) for type 2 diabetes. Costs for specific cancers attributable for sedentary behaviour were much lower: £19 million (£10 to £28 million) for lung cancer, £30 million (£24 to £35 million) for colon cancer and £7 million (£5 to £9 million) for endometrial cancer. Together, the total cost attributable to sedentary behaviour is £762 million (£639 to £879 million). The total UK NHS health expenditure is estimated to be £65.7 billion for 2016/2017, indicating that sedentary behaviour accounted for 1.2% of the total expenditure.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Costs attributable to diseases associated with sedentary behaviour

    After adjustment for double-counting, the NHS cost attributable to sedentary behaviour is £677 million. An alternative method7 was also used as a sensitivity analysis. A meta-analysis reported the RR of having CVD as being 206% higher for people with type 2 diabetes compared with those without type 2 diabetes.34 Based on the prevalence of CVD in the general population (4.28%, as reported by the British Heart Foundation),35 we estimate that 8.82% of people with type 2 diabetes have CVD. After subtracting 8.82% of the type 2 diabetes expenditure, the total cost attributable to sedentary behaviour was £737 million.

    After an additional sensitivity analysis which excluded diseases for which only moderate evidence of an association was available, the total cost attributable to sedentary behaviour was £706 million (£600 to £807 million), that is, approximately 8% lower. The small change is due to the much lower incidence and prevalence of the individual cancers in comparison with CVD and type 2 diabetes.

    Discussion

    This cost-of-illness analysis found that prolonged sedentary behaviour costs the UK NHS £0.8 billion in the financial year 2016–2017. After adjustments for double-counting, this estimate was slightly reduced to £0.7 billion. The results suggested that 11.6% of all-cause mortality was associated with sedentary behaviour. Therefore, 69 276 deaths might have been avoided in 2016 if sedentary behaviour was eliminated in the UK.

    The total costs presented are likely to be a conservative estimate of the true burden of sedentary behaviour. There are reported links between sedentary behaviour and several other cancers, musculoskeletal disorders and mental health disorders.36–38 However, the evidence remains limited; hence, they were excluded from this study. Moreover, the analysis used a PAF approach which typically produces lower estimates than alternative econometric approaches.39

    CVD, type 2 diabetes, and colon, endometrial and lung cancers are all linked to sedentary behaviour (PAFs ranged from 4.9% to 16.9%). Patterson et al 4 also calculated PAFs for sedentary behaviour in a recent meta-analysis, where the exposure was television viewing time and the methodology (using a Monte Carlo microsimulation) was somewhat different. Thus, it is difficult to compare these estimates. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that the PAFs for type 2 diabetes, CVD and all-cause mortality are of the same order of magnitude (ie, type 2 diabetes > all-cause mortality > CVD). The PAFs for CVD are similar (5% [95% CI 1% to 8%] from Patterson et al 4 vs 4.9% [95% CI 1.8% to 7.9%] in the present study). This indicates that although the studies differ in their definition of sedentary behaviour and in the methods used, there is considerable agreement in the observed pattern of the relationships.

    This study had several strengths. We have calculated PAFs for sedentary behaviour in the UK using the best data available, and we have included all conditions reported as having moderate to strong evidence of an association.6 The analysis followed several suggestions from a checklist for reporting estimates of the economic costs of risk factors by Ding et al.39 Importantly, all extracted RRs had been adjusted for physical activity. We provided uncertainty limits in the form of 95% CIs for the PAFs and the subsequent cost estimates. Finally, we subtracted a proportion of costs to account for the strong likelihood of double-counting due to comorbidities.

    However, the study was limited by the evidence available for sedentary behaviour and health outcomes. We included a non-European study15 in order to estimate the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in lung cancer cases, which may not fully reflect a UK population. Individual studies included in the meta-analyses which were used in this analysis varied in their choice of cut-off values for each category, definition of sedentary behaviour and in the questionnaire used. Crucially, six hours/day was the minimum median time spent in sedentary behaviour in the highest categories (online supplementary file 3). Nevertheless, theoretically the definition used for the prevalence of sedentary behaviour should match the RR when calculating the PAF. We believe that since the minimum median sedentary time in the most sedentary class is six hours, and our definition of sedentary behaviour is spending at least six hours sedentary, the RRs reported are reasonable estimations. Therefore, the PAFs are also reasonable estimations. There were insufficient studies with appropriate data to investigate a dose–response association for sedentary behaviour. We were further limited by self-reported data for sedentary behaviour, which may either underestimate or overestimate sedentary behaviour40 and could subsequently bias the results in either direction.

    Future research is still needed to elucidate the complex relationships between sedentary behaviour and health, and which of these are truly independent of physical activity.28 Ideally, prospective studies could use a combined method of both accelerometry and behaviour logs, repeated over time, when measuring this behaviour. Consensus on how many hours/day of sedentary behaviour is harmful would be helpful in research, in line with the more specific guidelines for physical activity.3

    Indirect costs that incorporate the financial burden on society, such as productivity losses to the workforce, can be very high. Physical inactivity was responsible for an estimated $0.5 billion (international dollars) outside of the healthcare setting in 2013 in the UK.7 There are no known estimates for the wider societal costs of sedentary behaviour. Economic estimates will need to be updated as further evidence on sedentary behaviour emerges.

    There are several barriers that cause a gap between evidence and practice. Evidence may be non-existent or arrive too late for policymakers. They may prefer uncomplicated papers and a wide range of evidence to inform their decisions.41 We have been explicit about the strengths and weakness of this straightforward cost estimation for the benefit of other academics and policymakers. We hope that these results can be easily understood and synthesised with other evidence on sedentary behaviour. An economic case could be made for investment in reducing the prevalence of sedentary behaviour in the UK. These cost estimates can be compared with those of other risk factors in order to inform decision making and prioritise preventative health programmes. Many individuals in the UK spend their leisure time in sedentary behaviour, and the workplace represents a significant proportion of unavoidable daily sitting time for many people. Measures should be taken to reduce sedentary behaviour with the aim of improving population health and reducing the financial burden to the health service.

    This analysis presents the first estimate of direct healthcare costs due to prolonged sedentary behaviour in the UK. After adjustment for comorbidities, diseases associated with prolonged sedentary behaviour cost the NHS £0.7 billion in 2016–2017 costs. Furthermore, 69 276 deaths could have potentially been avoided in 2016 if prolonged sedentary behaviour in the UK was eliminated. It is hoped that these estimates will help policymakers prioritise resources to address a major public health issue.

    What is already known on this subject

    • Recent evidence indicates that prolonged sedentary behaviour increases the risk of several non-communicable diseases.

    • However, a large proportion of the UK population spend their lives in sedentary jobs and leisure activities, and official physical activity recommendations regarding sedentariness are vague.

    What this study adds

    • Diseases associated with prolonged sedentary behaviour cost the National Health Service £0.8 billion in the 2016–2017 financial year.

    • This estimate can inform decision makers who are prioritising resources in healthcare and make a financial case for reducing sedentary behaviour in the UK.

    References

    1. ↵
      2. Dunstan DW ,
      3. Healy GN ,
      4. Sugiyama T , et al
      . “Too much sitting”and metabolic risk - Has modern technology caught up with us? Eur Endocrinol 2009;5:29–33.
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      2. Tremblay MS ,
      3. Aubert S ,
      4. Barnes JD , et al
      . Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017;14.doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
    3. ↵
      1. UK Department of Health
      . Physical activity guidelines, 2011. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-physical-activity-guidelines [Accessed Jan 2018].
    4. ↵
      2. Patterson R ,
      3. McNamara E ,
      4. Tainio M , et al
      . Sedentary behaviour and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:811–29.doi:10.1007/s10654-018-0380-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
    6. ↵
      1. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee
      . 2018 physical activity guidelines Advisory Committee scientific report, 2018. Available: https://health.gov/paguidelines/secondedition/report/pdf/PAG_Advisory_Committee_Report.pdf [Accessed Jul 2018].
    7. ↵
      2. Ding D ,
      3. Lawson KD ,
      4. Kolbe-Alexander TL , et al
      . The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet 2016;388:1311–24.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      2. Scarborough P ,
      3. Bhatnagar P ,
      4. Wickramasinghe KK , et al
      . The economic burden of ill health due to diet, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol and obesity in the UK: an update to 2006-07 NHS costs. J Public Health 2011;33:527–35.doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr033
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      2. Biswas A ,
      3. Oh PI ,
      4. Faulkner GE , et al
      . Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:123–32.doi:10.7326/M14-1651
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      2. Pandey A ,
      3. Salahuddin U ,
      4. Garg S , et al
      . Continuous dose-response association between sedentary time and risk for cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2016;1:575–83.doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1567
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      2. Lee I-M ,
      3. Shiroma EJ ,
      4. Lobelo F , et al
      . Impact of Physical Inactivity on the World’s Major Non-Communicable Diseases. Lancet 2012;380:219–29.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      2. Stamatakis E ,
      3. Pulsford RM ,
      4. Brunner EJ , et al
      . Sitting behaviour is not associated with incident diabetes over 13 years: the Whitehall II cohort study. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:818–23.doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096723
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      2. Bjørk Petersen C ,
      3. Bauman A ,
      4. Grønbæk M , et al
      . Total sitting time and risk of myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort of Danish adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014;11.doi:10.1186/1479-5868-11-13
    14. ↵
      2. van der Ploeg HP ,
      3. Chey T ,
      4. Korda RJ , et al
      . Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222 497 Australian adults. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:494–500.doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2174
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      2. Ukawa S ,
      3. Tamakoshi A ,
      4. Wakai K , et al
      . Prospective cohort study on television viewing time and incidence of lung cancer: findings from the Japan collaborative Cohort study. Cancer Causes Control 2013;24:1547–53.doi:10.1007/s10552-013-0231-z
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      2. Simons CCJM ,
      3. Hughes LAE ,
      4. van Engeland M , et al
      . Physical activity, occupational sitting time, and colorectal cancer risk in the Netherlands Cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 2013;177:514–30.doi:10.1093/aje/kws280
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      2. Gierach GL ,
      3. Chang S-C ,
      4. Brinton LA , et al
      . Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and endometrial cancer risk in the NIH-AARP diet and health study. Int J Cancer 2009;124:2139–47.doi:10.1002/ijc.24059
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      2. Rockhill B ,
      3. Newman B ,
      4. Weinberg C
      . Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. Am J Public Health 1998;88:15–19.doi:10.2105/AJPH.88.1.15
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      2. Greenland S
      . Interval estimation by simulation as an alternative to and extension of confidence intervals. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:1389–97.doi:10.1093/ije/dyh276
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
    21. ↵
      1. Statistics for Wales
      . NHS expenditure programme budgets, 2016-17, 2018. Available: https://gov.wales/docs/statistics/2018/180417-nhs-expenditure-programme-budgets-2016-17-en.pdf [Accessed Jun 2018].
    22. ↵
      1. Scottish Government
      . Programme budgeting in NHS Scotland, 2015. Available: https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2015/08/4735/0 [Accessed Jul 2018].
    23. ↵
      2. Curtis L ,
      3. Burns A
      . Unit costs of health and social care 2017, personal social services research unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, 2017. Available: https://doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/01.02/65559
    24. ↵
      2. Einarson TR ,
      3. Acs A ,
      4. Ludwig C , et al
      . Prevalence of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic literature review of scientific evidence from across the world in 2007-2017. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018;17.doi:10.1186/s12933-018-0728-6
    25. ↵
      2. Ekelund U ,
      3. Steene-Johannessen J ,
      4. Brown WJ , et al
      . Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet 2016;388:1302–10.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. ↵
      2. Dunstan DW ,
      3. Salmon J ,
      4. Owen N , et al
      . Associations of TV viewing and physical activity with the metabolic syndrome in Australian adults. Diabetologia 2005;48:2254–61.doi:10.1007/s00125-005-1963-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      2. George ES ,
      3. Rosenkranz RR ,
      4. Kolt GS
      . Chronic disease and sitting time in middle-aged Australian males: findings from the 45 and Up study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10.doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-20
    28. ↵
      2. Wijndaele K ,
      3. Brage S ,
      4. Besson H , et al
      . Television viewing time independently predicts all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: the EPIC Norfolk study. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:150–9.doi:10.1093/ije/dyq105
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      2. Dunstan DW et al
      . Television viewing time and mortality the Australian Diabetes, obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Circulation 2015;121:384–91.
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      2. León-Muñoz LM ,
      3. Martínez-Gómez D ,
      4. Balboa-Castillo T , et al
      . Continued sedentariness, change in sitting time, and mortality in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:1501–7.doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182897e87
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    31. ↵
      2. Shen D ,
      3. Mao W ,
      4. Liu T , et al
      . Sedentary behavior and incident cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One 2014;9:e105709.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105709
    32. ↵
      1. Nuffield Trust, The Health Foundation, and The King's Fund
      . The autumn statement: joint statement on health and social care, 2016. Available: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/the-autumn-statement-joint-statement-on-health-and-social-care [Accessed Jul 2018].
    33. ↵
      1. Audit Scotland
      . NHS in Scotland 2017, 2017. Available: http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2017/nr_171026_nhs_overview.pdf [Accessed Jul 2018].
    34. ↵
      2. Sarwar N ,
      3. Gao P ,
      4. Seshasai SRK , et al
      . Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies. Lancet 2010;375:2215–22.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60484-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    35. ↵
      1. British Heart Foundation
      . Heart and circulatory diseases statistics 2017, 2017. Available: https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics/heart-statistics-publications/cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2017 [Accessed Oct 2018].
    36. ↵
      2. de Rezende LFM ,
      3. Rodrigues Lopes M ,
      4. Rey-López JP , et al
      . Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One 2014;9:e105620.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105620
    37. ↵
      2. Werneck AO ,
      3. Oyeyemi AL ,
      4. Szwarcwald CL , et al
      . Associations between TV viewing and depressive symptoms among 60,202 Brazilian adults: the Brazilian National Health survey. J Affect Disord 2018;236:23–30.doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.083
      OpenUrl
    38. ↵
      2. Hoare E ,
      3. Milton K ,
      4. Foster C , et al
      . The associations between sedentary behaviour and mental health among adolescents: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016;13.doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0432-4
    39. ↵
      2. Ding D ,
      3. Kolbe-Alexander T ,
      4. Nguyen B , et al
      . The economic burden of physical inactivity: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1392–409.doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097385
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      2. Healy GN ,
      3. Clark BK ,
      4. Winkler EAH , et al
      . Measurement of adults' sedentary time in population-based studies. Am J Prev Med 2011;41:216–27.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      2. Whitty CJM
      . What makes an academic paper useful for health policy? BMC Med 2015;13.doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0544-8

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. Changes to the data in the sentence starting 'More realistically, if levels of sedentary behaviour were 10%, 30% or 50% lower in 2016…' in the Results section have been made.

    • Contributors CO, FK, LH and MAT developed the research question. LH did the analysis, with methodological guidance from CO. HM provided statistical expertise. LH drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding LH is funded by a Department for the Economy (Northern Ireland) studentship.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

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