Cost-Effectiveness of One Year Dementia Follow-Up Care by Memory Clinics or General Practitioners: Economic Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial

IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients’ characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country’s national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors atwww.twitter.comandwww.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Reduced Sickness Absence after a Physical Activity Intervention among Health Care Workers: One-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Controlled Trial

International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation ◽

10.4172/2329-9096.1000367 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 4 (5) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Lotte Nygaard Andersen ◽

Birgit Juul Kristensen ◽

Thomas Lund Sorensen ◽

Lene Gram

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Health Care ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Health Care Workers ◽

Physical Activity Intervention ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Care Workers ◽

One Year ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

A randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a dedicated Health and Social Care Professionals team in the Emergency Department on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older adults: Study Protocol

10.21203/rs.2.12207/v2 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Marica Cassarino ◽

Katie Robinson ◽

Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽

Eimear Smalle ◽

Stephen White ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Hospital Admissions ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Health And Social Care ◽

Effectiveness Of Care ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background : Older people are frequent Emergency Department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes post-index visit, often have increased ED length of stay and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCPs teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared to usual care. Methods : The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30-days, four and six-month follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; costs-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared to usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. Discussion : This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of the study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12 th November 2018. Protocol version 1. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515

Download Full-text

EFFICACY OF FOUR MOTIVATIONAL TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVING ORAL HYGIENE. ONE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Clinical Trials in Dentistry ◽

10.36130/ctd.01.2019.07 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 01 (01) ◽

pp. 79

Author(s):

M. Giani ◽

U. Pagliaro ◽

L. Franchi ◽

P. Felice ◽

R. Rotundo

Keyword(s):

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Oral Hygiene ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

One Year ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017511 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (8) ◽

pp. e017511 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

BMC Health Services Research ◽

10.1186/s12913-020-05751-z ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Meg Wiggins ◽

Mary Sawtell ◽

Octavia Wiseman ◽

Christine McCourt ◽

Sandra Eldridge ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Antenatal Care ◽

Standard Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Trial Registration ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

The World ◽

Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a ‘healthy baby’ composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born “healthy” in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional ‘healthy and positive birth’ of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. Discussion This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. Trial registration Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441. Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

Download Full-text