scholarly journals Economic evaluation of the Good School Toolkit: an intervention for reducing violence in primary schools in Uganda

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e000526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Greco ◽  
Louise Knight ◽  
Willington Ssekadde ◽  
Sophie Namy ◽  
Dipak Naker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Good School ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionThis paper presents the cost and cost-effectiveness of the Good School Toolkit (GST), a programme aimed at reducing physical violence perpetrated by school staff to students in Uganda.MethodsThe effectiveness of the Toolkit was tested with a cluster randomised controlled trial in 42 primary schools in Luwero District, Uganda. A full economic costing evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted alongside the trial. Both financial and economic costs were collected retrospectively from the provider’s perspective to estimate total and unit costs.ResultsThe total cost of setting up and running the Toolkit over the 18-month trial period is estimated at US$397 233, excluding process monitor (M&E) activities. The cost to run the intervention is US$7429 per school annually, or US$15 per primary school pupil annually, in the trial intervention schools. It is estimated that the intervention has averted 1620 cases of past-week physical violence during the 18-month implementation period. The total cost per case of violence averted is US$244, and the annual implementation cost is US$96 per case averted during the trial.ConclusionsThe GST is a cost-effective intervention for reducing violence against pupils in primary schools in Uganda. It compares favourably against other violence reduction interventions in the region.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of PoNDER health visitor training for mothers at lower risk of depression: findings on prevention of postnatal depression from a cluster-randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (08) ◽  
pp. 1324-1334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Henderson ◽  
Simon Dixon ◽  
Annette Bauer ◽  
Martin Knapp ◽  
C. Jane Morrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Postnatal Depression ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

AbstractBackgroundThere is evidence for the cost-effectiveness of health visitor (HV) training to assess postnatal depression (PND) and deliver psychological approaches to women at risk of depression. Whether this approach is cost-effective for lower-risk women is unknown. There is a need to know the cost of HV-delivered universal provision, and how much it might cost to improve health-related quality of life for postnatal women. A sub-study of a cluster-randomised controlled trial in the former Trent region (England) previously investigated the effectiveness of PoNDER HV training in mothers at lower risk of PND. We conducted a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis at 6-months postnatal for all mothers with lower-risk status attributed to an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score <12 at 6-weeks postnatal.MethodsIntervention HVs were trained in assessment and cognitive behavioural or person-centred psychological support techniques to prevent depression. Outcomes examined: quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains over the period between 6 weeks and 6 months derived from SF-6D (from SF-36); risk-of-depression at 6 months (dichotomising 6-month EPDS scores into lower risk (<12) and at-risk (⩾12).ResultsIn lower-risk women, 1474 intervention (63 clusters) and 767 control participants (37 clusters) had valid 6-week and 6-month EPDS scores. Costs and outcomes data were available for 1459 participants. 6-month adjusted costs were £82 lower in intervention than control groups, with 0.002 additional QALY gained. The probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000 was very high (99%).ConclusionsPoNDER HV training was highly cost-effective in preventing symptoms of PND in a population of lower-risk women and cost-reducing over 6 months.

scholarly journals Staff training in positive behaviour support for behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability: cost-utility analysis of a cluster randomised controlled trial

BJPsych Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Maree Hunter ◽  
Victoria Vickerstaff ◽  
Michaela Poppe ◽  
Andre Strydom ◽  
Michael King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staff Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Positive Behaviour Support ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Background Behaviour that challenges in people with intellectual disability is associated with higher healthcare, social care and societal costs. Although behavioural therapies are widely used, there is limited evidence regarding the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Aims We aimed to assess the incremental cost per QALY gained of therapist training in positive behaviour support (PBS) and treatment as usual (TAU) compared with TAU using data from a cluster randomised controlled trial (Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT01680276). Method We conducted a cost-utility analysis (cost per QALY gained) of 23 teams randomised to PBS or TAU, with a total of 246 participants followed up over 36 months. The primary analysis was from a healthcare cost perspective with a secondary analysis from a societal cost perspective. Results Over 36 months the intervention resulted in an additional 0.175 QALYs (discounted and adjusted 95% CI −0.068 to 0.418). The total cost of training in and delivery of PBS is £1598 per participant plus an additional cost of healthcare of £399 (discounted and adjusted 95% CI −603 to 1724). From a healthcare cost perspective there is an 85% probability that the intervention is cost-effective compared with TAU at a £30 000 willingness to pay for a QALY threshold. Conclusions There was a high probability that training in PBS is cost-effective as the cost of training and delivery of PBS is balanced out by modest improvements in quality of life. However, staff training in PBS is not supported given we found no evidence for clinical effectiveness.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted training versus an enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation due to stroke: results from the RATULS randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042081
Author(s):  
Cristina Fernandez-Garcia ◽  
Laura Ternent ◽  
Tara Marie Homer ◽  
Helen Rodgers ◽  
Helen Bosomworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveTo determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care.DesignEconomic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.SettingFour National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen’s Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.Participants770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke.InterventionsParticipants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care.Main economic outcome measuresMean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsAt 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean QALYs were highest for the EULT group (0.23) but no evidence of a difference (p=0.995) was observed between the robot-assisted training (0.21) and usual care groups (0.21). The incremental cost per QALY at 6 months for participants randomised to EULT compared with usual care was £74 100. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that robot-assisted training was unlikely to be cost-effective and that EULT had a 19% chance of being cost-effective at the £20 000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Usual care was most likely to be cost-effective at all the WTP values considered in the analysis.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered.Trial registration numberISRCTN69371850.

scholarly journals A guided and unguided internet- and mobile-based intervention for chronic pain: health economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e023390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Paganini ◽  
Jiaxi Lin ◽  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Delia Leiding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Treatment Response ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

ObjectiveThis study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPainguidedand ACTonPainunguided) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version.DesignThis is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9 weeks and 6 months after randomisation.SettingParticipants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company.Participants302 adults (≥18 years, pain for at least 6 months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPainguided, ACTonPainunguided, CG).InterventionsACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPainguidedand ACTonPainunguidedonly differ in provision of human support.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMain outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR).ResultsAt 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPainguided(44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPainunguided(28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPainguidedvs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPainunguideddominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPainguided(vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPainunguided(vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society’s willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPainguided) and €127,000 (ACTonPainunguided) per QALY gained. ACTonPainguidedvs ACTonPainunguidedrevealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993.ConclusionsDepending on society’s willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPainunguided(vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPainguided.Trial registration numberDRKS00006183.

scholarly journals A cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a school-based cognitive–behavioural therapy programme (FRIENDS) in the reduction of anxiety and improvement in mood in children aged 9/10 years

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (14) ◽  
pp. 1-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Stallard ◽  
Elena Skryabina ◽  
Gordon Taylor ◽  
Rob Anderson ◽  
Obioha C Ukoumunne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Anxiety Prevention ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Prevention Programmes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundAnxiety in children is common, impairs everyday functioning and increases the risk of severe mental health disorders in adulthood, yet few children with anxiety are identified and referred for treatment.ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a universal school-based preventative programme (FRIENDS) in reducing symptoms of anxiety and low mood.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial. Schools (n = 41) were randomly assigned after recruitment on a 1 : 1 : 1 basis to health-led FRIENDS, school-led FRIENDS and usual school provision.SettingPrimary schools in three local education authorities in the south-west of England.ParticipantsChildren (n = 1362) aged 9–10 years attending school and participating in personal, social and health education (PSHE).InterventionsThe FRIENDS programme is a cognitive–behavioural therapy programme that develops skills to counter the cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects of anxiety. The FRIENDS programme was led by either a trained member of the school or a health leader external to the school and was delivered over 9 consecutive weeks. The comparison group received usual school PSHE lessons. Interventions were delivered in the academic year September 2011–July 2012.Main outcome measuresClinical effectiveness assessed by child report of symptoms of anxiety (Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, RCADS); cost-effectiveness based on RCADS and quality-adjusted life-years (Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions, CHU-9D) between baseline and 6 months; process evaluation, evaluation of reach and attrition and qualitative feedback from children, school staff and parents.ResultsAt 12 months there was a difference in the adjusted mean RCADS scores for health-led FRIENDS compared with school-led FRIENDS [–3.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) –6.48 to –1.35] and for health-led FRIENDS compared with usual school provision (–2.66, 95% CI –5.22 to –0.09). At 24 months we were able to assess only 43.6% of our cohort. There were few differences in baseline characteristics between completers and non-completers. Child-reported anxiety in all three groups had reduced by 24 months and there were no longer any group effects. There were no between-group effects for any parent- or child-completed secondary outcomes at 12 or 24 months. The cost of the FRIENDS programme was £52–56 per child. We found no evidence that the FRIENDS programme was cost-effective over a 6-month period; however, our subgroup for the economic analysis differed significantly from our main trial cohort.ConclusionsAlthough greater reductions in anxiety were noted at 12 months when the FRIENDS programme was delivered by health leaders, these additional benefits were not maintained at 24 months. Children’s anxiety levels improved irrespective of the intervention that they received. Our economic evaluation and 24-month assessment had significant shortcomings. However, the universal delivery of specific anxiety prevention programmes will result in additional costs that may be beyond the finances available to most schools. Future work should identify the active ingredients and potential moderators of universal anxiety programmes to determine whether programme length can be reduced, short-term effectiveness maintained and cost-effectiveness improved. At present, our results find limited evidence to support the universal provision of specific anxiety prevention programmes in UK primary schools.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN23563048.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of upfront point-of-care testing in the emergency department: a secondary analysis of a randomised, controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Nicole Goldstein ◽  
Mike Wells ◽  
Craig Vincent-Lambert
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Viability ◽  
Time Saving ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Time-saving is constantly sought after in the Emergency Department (ED), and Point-of-Care (POC) testing has been shown to be an effective time-saving intervention. However, when direct costs are compared, these tests commonly appear to be cost-prohibitive. Economic viability may become apparent when the time-saving is translated into financial benefits from staffing, time- and cost-saving. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic investigations utilised prior to medical contact for ED patients with common medical complaints. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective, randomised, controlled trial in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of upfront, POC testing. Eleven combinations of POC equivalents of commonly-used special investigations (blood tests (i-STAT and complete blood count (CBC)), electrocardiograms (ECGs) and x-rays (LODOX® (Low Dose X-ray)) were evaluated compared to the standard ED pathway with traditional diagnostic tests. The economic viability of each permutation was assessed using the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio and Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves. Expenses related to the POC test implementation were compared to the control group while taking staffing costs and time-saving into account. Results There were 897 medical patients randomised to receive various combinations of POC tests. The most cost-effective combination was the i-STAT+CBC permutation which, based on the time saving, would ultimately save money if implemented. All LODOX®-containing permutations were costlier but still saved time. Non-LODOX® permutations were virtually 100% cost-effective if an additional cost of US$50 per patient was considered acceptable. Higher staffing costs would make using POC testing even more economical. Conclusions In certain combinations, upfront, POC testing is more cost-effective than standard diagnostic testing for common ED undifferentiated medical presentations – the most economical POC test combination being the i-STAT + CBC. Upfront POC testing in the ED has the potential to not only save time but also to save money. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03102216.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document