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 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 Clinical outcomes of staff training in positive behaviour support to reduce challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability: cluster randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 212 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Hassiotis ◽  
Michaela Poppe ◽  
Andre Strydom ◽  
Victoria Vickerstaff ◽  
Ian S. Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Staff Training ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Challenging Behaviour ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Positive Behaviour Support ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundStaff training in positive behaviour support (PBS) is a widespread treatment approach for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability.AimsTo evaluate whether such training is clinically effective in reducing challenging behaviour during routine care (trial registration: NCT01680276).MethodWe carried out a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 23 community intellectual disability services in England, randomly allocated to manual-assisted staff training in PBS (n = 11) or treatment as usual (TAU, n = 12). Data were collected from 246 adult participants.ResultsNo treatment effects were found for the primary outcome (challenging behaviour over 12 months, adjusted mean difference = −2.14, 95% CI: −8.79, 4.51) or secondary outcomes.ConclusionsStaff training in PBS, as applied in this study, did not reduce challenging behaviour. Further research should tackle implementation issues and endeavour to identify other interventions that can reduce challenging behaviour.Declaration of interestNone.

Cost effectiveness of a pragmatic exercise intervention (EXIMS) for people with multiple sclerosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 1123-1130 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Tosh ◽  
S Dixon ◽  
A Carter ◽  
A Daley ◽  
J Petty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Qaly Threshold

Background: Exercise is a safe, non-pharmacological adjunctive treatment for people with multiple sclerosis but cost-effective approaches to implementing exercise within health care settings are needed. Objective: The objective of this paper is to assess the cost effectiveness of a pragmatic exercise intervention in conjunction with usual care compared to usual care only in people with mild to moderate multiple sclerosis. Methods: A cost-utility analysis of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial over nine months of follow-up was conducted. A total of 120 people with multiple sclerosis were randomised (1:1) to the intervention or usual care. Exercising participants received 18 supervised and 18 home exercise sessions over 12 weeks. The primary outcome for the cost utility analysis was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, calculated using utilities measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire. Results: The incremental cost per QALY of the intervention was £10,137 per QALY gained compared to usual care. The probability of being cost effective at a £20,000 per QALY threshold was 0.75, rising to 0.78 at a £30,000 per QALY threshold. Conclusion: The pragmatic exercise intervention is highly likely to be cost effective at current established thresholds, and there is scope for it to be tailored to particular sub-groups of patients or services to reduce its cost impact.

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 a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial)

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Panca ◽  
Deborah Christie ◽  
Tim J Cole ◽  
Silvia Costa ◽  
John Gregson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Community Settings ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.DesignCost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity settings in Greater London, England.Participants174 young people with obesity aged 12–19 years.InterventionsIntervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6 months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice.Main outcome measuresMean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).ResultsMean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI −0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120 630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20 000 or £30 000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN99840111.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document