scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with depression: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial

BJPsych Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padraig Dixon ◽  
Sandra Hollinghurst ◽  
Louisa Edwards ◽  
Clare Thomas ◽  
Alexis Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit ◽  
To Receive

BackgroundDepression is a prevalent long-term condition that is associated with substantial resource use. Telehealth may offer a cost-effective means of supporting the management of people with depression.AimsTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) for patients with depression.MethodA prospective patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited through primary care, and the intervention was delivered via a telehealth service. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of depression and PHQ-9 score ≥10 were recruited from 43 English general practices. A series of up to 10 scripted, theory-led, telephone encounters with health information advisers supported participants to effect a behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. The intervention was delivered alongside usual care and was designed to support rather than duplicate primary care. Cost-effectiveness from a combined health and social care perspective was measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost–consequence analysis included cost of lost productivity, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome.ResultsA total of 609 participants were randomised – 307 to receive the Healthlines intervention plus usual care and 302 to receive usual care alone. Forty-five per cent of participants had missing quality of life data, 41% had missing cost data and 51% of participants had missing data on either cost or utility, or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base-case analysis. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service/personal social services cost of £168 (95% CI £43 to £294) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.001 (95% CI −0.023 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £132 630. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 was –£143 (95% CI –£164 to –£122) and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.30. Productivity costs were higher in the intervention arm, but out-of-pocket expenses were lower.ConclusionsThe Healthlines service was acceptable to patients as a means of condition management, and response to treatment after 4 months was higher for participants randomised to the intervention. However, the positive average intervention effect size was modest, and incremental costs were high relative to a small incremental QALY gain at 12 months. The intervention is not likely to be cost-effective in its current form.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e017511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishma Patel ◽  
Rebecca J Beeken ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Rumana Z Omar ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

scholarly journals An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.

TeleClinical Care: A randomised controlled trial of a smartphone-based model of care to support cardiac patients transitioning from hospital to the community (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen Indraratna ◽  
Uzzal Biswas ◽  
James McVeigh ◽  
Andrew Mamo ◽  
Joseph Magdy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Intervention Cost ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and educational components for both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) inpatients to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) plus usual care in patients being discharged from hospital after an ACS or HF admission, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS Methods: In this pilot, 2-centre RCT, a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) was applied at discharge. The primary endpoint was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure and physical activity daily, plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patient’s smartphone and then subsequently to a central server. Abnormal readings were flagged by email to a monitoring team. Control participants received usual care. RESULTS Results: 164 hospital inpatients were randomised at the time of discharge (TCC n=81, control n = 83, mean age 61.5 years, 79% male, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P = .97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 vs. 41 readmissions, P = 0.015), including cardiac readmissions (11 vs. 25, P = .025), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (39% vs. 18%, P = .025) and medication adherence (75% vs. 50%, P = .002). The average usability rating of the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost AUD $6,028 per cardiac readmission saved. When modelled in a mainstream clinical setting, however, enrolment of 237 patients was projected to have the same healthcare expenditure compared to usual care, and enrolment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately AUD $100,000. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: TCC was feasible and safe for ACS and HF inpatients. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar, however long-term benefits were demonstrated including fewer total readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. CLINICALTRIAL The study was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001547235).

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture compared with usual care for acute non-specific low back pain: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 096452842110557
Author(s):  
Trygve Skonnord ◽  
Arne Fetveit ◽  
Holgeir Skjeie ◽  
Mette Brekke ◽  
Margreth Grotle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Care Costs

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a single treatment session of acupuncture, when applied in addition to usual care for acute low back pain (ALBP). Methods: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial in Norwegian general practice. In total, 171 participants with ALBP ⩽14 days were randomised to a control group (CG) receiving usual care or to an acupuncture group (AG) receiving one additional session of Western medical acupuncture alongside usual care. Primary outcome measures for this cost-effectiveness analysis were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs and societal costs at days 28 and 365, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net monetary benefit (NMB). The NMB was calculated on the basis of the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of NOK 275,000 (USD 35,628) per QALY gained. Missing data were replaced by multiple chained imputation. Results: Eighty-six participants in the CG and 81 in the AG were included in the analysis. We found no QALY gain at day 28. At day 365, the incremental QALY of 0.035 was statistically significant. The differences in health care costs and societal costs were not statistically significant. Three out of four calculations led to negative ICERs (cost saving) and positive NMBs. For the health care perspective at day 365, the ICER was USD –568 per QALY and the NMB was USD 1265, with 95.9% probability of acupuncture being cost-effective. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of acupuncture for ALBP. The findings indicate that acupuncture may be cost-effective from a 1-year perspective, but more studies are needed. Trial registration number: NCT01439412 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

scholarly journals Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. e401-e411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kika Konstantinou ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Kate M Dunn ◽  
Reuben Ogollah ◽  
Majid Artus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Stratified Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Interdisciplinary COPD intervention in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 1801530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenifer Liang ◽  
Michael J. Abramson ◽  
Grant Russell ◽  
Anne E. Holland ◽  
Nicholas A. Zwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Lung Function ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Smoking Abstinence ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

We evaluated the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary, primary care-based model of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 43 general practices in Australia. Adults with a history of smoking and/or COPD, aged ≥40 years with two or more clinic visits in the previous year were enrolled following spirometric confirmation of COPD. The model of care comprised smoking cessation support, home medicines review (HMR) and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HomeBase). Main outcomes included changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), dyspnoea, smoking abstinence and lung function at 6 and 12 months.We identified 272 participants with COPD (157 intervention, 115 usual care); 49 (31%) out of 157 completed both HMR and HomeBase. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistically significant difference in change in SGRQ at 6 months (adjusted between-group difference 2.45 favouring intervention, 95% CI –0.89–5.79). Per protocol analyses showed clinically and statistically significant improvements in SGRQ in those receiving the full intervention compared to usual care (difference 5.22, 95% CI 0.19–10.25). No statistically significant differences were observed in change in CAT, dyspnoea, smoking abstinence or lung function.No significant evidence was found for the effectiveness of this interdisciplinary model of care for COPD in primary care over usual care. Low uptake was a limitation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document