scholarly journals An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of booklet-based self-management of dizziness in primary care, with and without expert telephone support

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Yardley ◽  
Sarah Kirby ◽  
Fiona Barker ◽  
Paul Little ◽  
James Raftery ◽  
...  
2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 761-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol A. Brownson ◽  
Thomas J. Hoerger ◽  
Edwin B. Fisher ◽  
Kerry E. Kilpatrick

Purpose The purpose of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of diabetes self-management programs in real-world community primary care settings. Estimates incorporated lifetime reductions in disease progression, costs of adverse events, and increases in quality of life. Methods Clinical results and costs were based on programs of the Diabetes Initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, implemented in primary care and community settings in disadvantaged areas with notable health disparities. Program results were used as inputs to a Markov simulation model to estimate the long-term effects of self-management interventions. A health systems perspective was adopted. Results The simulation model estimates that the intervention does reduce discounted lifetime treatment and complication costs by $3385, but this is more than offset by the $15 031 cost of implementing the intervention and maintaining its effects in subsequent years. The intervention is estimated to reduce long-term complications, leading to an increase in remaining life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $39 563/QALY, well below a common benchmark of $50 000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model’s estimates under various alternative assumptions. The model generally predicts acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios. Conclusions Self-management programs for type 2 diabetes are cost-effective from a health systems perspective when the cost savings due to reductions in long-term complications are recognized. These findings may justify increased reimbursement for effective self-management programs in diverse settings.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e040543
Author(s):  
Adam W A Geraghty ◽  
Lisa Roberts ◽  
Jonathan Hill ◽  
Nadine E Foster ◽  
Lucy Yardley ◽  
...  

IntroductionSelf-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients.Methods and analysisA three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy.Trial registration numberISRCTN14736486.


2000 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1091-1098 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuzuru Takemura ◽  
Haku Ishida ◽  
Yuji Inoue ◽  
Hiroyuki Kobayashi ◽  
J Robert Beck

Abstract Background: Diagnostic test panels have been advocated by the Japan Society of Clinical Pathology for evaluation of presenting complaints of new outpatients in primary care medicine. The tests have additional potential utility for opportunistic finding of asymptomatic diseases, but data are lacking on the number of new conditions identified by the test panels and on the cost per identified case. Methods: We studied 540 new, symptomatic patients at the Comprehensive Medicine Clinics of National Defense Medical College during 1991–1997. All underwent testing with the “Essential Laboratory Tests” panel (2) [ELT(2) panel]. This panel includes hematologic tests, urinalysis, total protein, C-reactive protein, albumin, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, urea nitrogen, creatinine, uric acid, serum protein fractionation, six enzymes, and optional tests, including x-rays, electrocardiogram, and fecal occult blood. Results: The ELT(2) panel uncovered 276 additional diagnoses of asymptomatic disease or abnormal health status. The most frequent occult condition was hyperlipidemia (100 cases) followed by liver dysfunction (53 cases). Clinical efficiency of the panel (occult diseases/patient) varied depending on the category of tentative initial diagnosis, with the highest efficiency in patients with cardiovascular disease. We created smaller panels by combining 11 basic tests [called the ELT(1) baseline panel] with one or more additional tests from the ELT(2) and analyzed their cost-effectiveness. Addition of four tests (total cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase, glucose, and uric acid) improved both clinical efficiency (0.41 occult disease/patient) and economic efficiency [¥2372 (∼$22.50 US)/occult disease] at a cost-effectiveness of ¥177 per incremental case of occult disease. Addition of further tests decreased cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Although the ELT(2) panel has supplemental utility for opportunistic screening of some significant, occult diseases and conditions, universal utilization of the full panel is not supported by the cost-effectiveness found in this study.


2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Duarte ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
E. Littlewood ◽  
S. Brabyn ◽  
C. Hewitt ◽  
...  

BackgroundComputerized cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care.MethodCosts were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results.ResultsNeither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant).ConclusionsTechnically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C.F. Wilson ◽  
Jon D. Emery ◽  
Ann Louise Kinmonth ◽  
A. Toby Prevost ◽  
Helen C. Morris ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document