Doping with CNS stimulants is a real public health problem and all sports authorities should participate in its prevention. Dissemination of information is essential to prevent doping in sport and to provide alternatives. Adequate training and education in this domain should be introduced.

BackgroundWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Give-it-a-Go programme, which offers free leisure centre memberships to physically inactive members of the public in a single London Borough receiving state benefits.MethodsA decision analytic Markov model was developed to analyse lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 1025 people recruited to the intervention versus no intervention. In the intervention group, people were offered 4 months of free membership at a leisure centre. Physical activity levels were assessed at 0 and 4 months using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). Higher levels of physical activity were assumed to decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke and diabetes mellitus type II, as well as improve mental health. Costs were assessed from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was assessed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsOne-hundred fifty nine participants (15.5 %) completed the programme by attending the leisure centre for 4 months. Compared with no intervention, Give it a Go increased costs by £67.25 and QALYs by 0.0033 (equivalent to 1.21 days in full health) per recruited person. The incremental costs per QALY gained were £20,347. The results were highly sensitive to the magnitude of mental health gain due to physical activity and the duration of the effect of the programme (1 year in the base case analysis). When the mental health gain was omitted from the analysis, the incremental cost per QALY gained increased to almost £1.5 million. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the incremental costs per QALY gained were below £20,000 in 39 % of the 5000 simulations.ConclusionsGive it a Go did not significantly increase life-expectancy, but had a positive influence on quality of life due to the mental health gain of physical activity. If the increase in physical activity caused by Give it a Go lasts for more than 1 year, the programme would be cost-effective given a willingness to pay for a QALY of £20,000.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3300-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionPhysical activity is essential for every facet of children's health. However, physical activity levels in British children are low. The school environment is a promising setting to increase children's physical activity but limited empirical evidence exists on how a change in the outdoor physical school environment influences physical activity behaviour. The London Borough of Camden is redesigning seven existing school playgrounds to engage children to become more physically active. The primary aim of this project is to evaluate the impact of the redesigned playgrounds on children's physical activity, well-being and physical function/fitness.Method and analysisThis project will use a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Seven experimental schools and one control school will take part. One baseline data collection session and two follow-ups will be carried out. Between baseline and follow-up, the experimental school playgrounds will be redesigned. At baseline, a series of fitness tests, anthropometric and questionnaire measurements, and 7-day objective physical activity monitoring (Actigraph accelerometer) will be carried out on children (aged 5–16 years). This will be repeated at follow-up. Changes in overall physical activity levels and levels during different times of the day (eg, school breaks) will be examined. Multilevel regression modelling will be used to analyse the data.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this study will be disseminated through peer-review publications and scientific presentations. Ethical approval was obtained through the University College London Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 4400/002).