scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of intensive inpatient treatments for severely obese children and adolescents in the Netherlands; a randomized controlled trial (HELIOS)

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Makkes ◽  
Jutka Halberstadt ◽  
Carry M Renders ◽  
Judith E Bosmans ◽  
Olga H van der Baan-Slootweg ◽  
...  
10.2196/17351 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. e17351
Author(s):  
Jordi Piera-Jiménez ◽  
Marjolein Winters ◽  
Eva Broers ◽  
Damià Valero-Bover ◽  
Mirela Habibovic ◽  
...  

Background During the last few decades, preventing the development of cardiovascular disease has become a mainstay for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that interventions should focus more on committed approaches of self-care, such as electronic health techniques. Objective This study aimed to provide evidence to understand the financial consequences of implementing the “Do Cardiac Health: Advanced New Generation Ecosystem” (Do CHANGE 2) intervention, which was evaluated in a multisite randomized controlled trial to change the health behavior of patients with cardiovascular disease. Methods The cost-effectiveness analysis of the Do CHANGE 2 intervention was performed with the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing tool, based on a Markov model of five health states. The following two types of costs were considered for both study groups: (1) health care costs (ie, costs associated with the time spent by health care professionals on service provision, including consultations, and associated unplanned hospitalizations, etc) and (2) societal costs (ie, costs attributed to the time spent by patients and informal caregivers on care activities). Results The Do CHANGE 2 intervention was less costly in Spain (incremental cost was −€2514.90) and more costly in the Netherlands and Taiwan (incremental costs were €1373.59 and €1062.54, respectively). Compared with treatment as usual, the effectiveness of the Do CHANGE 2 program in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life-year gains was slightly higher in the Netherlands and lower in Spain and Taiwan. Conclusions In general, we found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio strongly varied depending on the country where the intervention was applied. The Do CHANGE 2 intervention showed a positive cost-effectiveness ratio only when implemented in Spain, indicating that it saved financial costs in relation to the effect of the intervention. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03178305; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178305


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Piera-Jiménez ◽  
Marjolein Winters ◽  
Eva Broers ◽  
Damià Valero-Bover ◽  
Mirela Habibovic ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND During the last few decades, preventing the development of cardiovascular disease has become a mainstay for reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It has been suggested that interventions should focus more on committed approaches of self-care, such as electronic health techniques. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to provide evidence to understand the financial consequences of implementing the “Do Cardiac Health: Advanced New Generation Ecosystem” (Do CHANGE 2) intervention, which was evaluated in a multisite randomized controlled trial to change the health behavior of patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS The cost-effectiveness analysis of the Do CHANGE 2 intervention was performed with the Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing tool, based on a Markov model of five health states. The following two types of costs were considered for both study groups: (1) health care costs (ie, costs associated with the time spent by health care professionals on service provision, including consultations, and associated unplanned hospitalizations, etc) and (2) societal costs (ie, costs attributed to the time spent by patients and informal caregivers on care activities). RESULTS The Do CHANGE 2 intervention was less costly in Spain (incremental cost was −€2514.90) and more costly in the Netherlands and Taiwan (incremental costs were €1373.59 and €1062.54, respectively). Compared with treatment as usual, the effectiveness of the Do CHANGE 2 program in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life-year gains was slightly higher in the Netherlands and lower in Spain and Taiwan. CONCLUSIONS In general, we found that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio strongly varied depending on the country where the intervention was applied. The Do CHANGE 2 intervention showed a positive cost-effectiveness ratio only when implemented in Spain, indicating that it saved financial costs in relation to the effect of the intervention. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03178305; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03178305


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document