A cost analysis of inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin E2 cervical priming for induction of labour: results from the OPRA trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela L. Adelson ◽  
Garry R. Wedlock ◽  
Chris S. Wilkinson ◽  
Kirsten Howard ◽  
Robert L. Bryce ◽  
...  

Objective To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons. Methods Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention. Results Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI −$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI −$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman. Conclusions Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming. What is known about the topic? Induction of labour is a common obstetric intervention. For women with low-risk, prolonged pregnancies who require cervical priming there has been increased interest in whether this period of waiting for the cervix to ‘ripen’ can be achieved at home. Outpatient priming has been reported to reduce hospital costs and improve maternal satisfaction. However, few studies have actually examined the cost of outpatient priming for induction of labour. What does this paper add? This is the first paper in Australia to both assess the full cost of outpatient cervical priming and to compare it with usual (inpatient) care. This is the first costing paper from a randomised controlled trial directly comparing inpatient and outpatient priming with prostaglandin E2. What are the implications for practitioners? For women with prolonged, low-risk pregnancies, a program of outpatient cervical priming can potentially reduce in-hospital costs and free up labour ward beds by avoiding an additional overnight hospitalisation.

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. e015246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Lenhard ◽  
Richard Ssegonja ◽  
Erik Andersson ◽  
Inna Feldman ◽  
Christian Rück ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a therapist-guided internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (ICBT) intervention for adolescents with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) compared with untreated patients on a waitlist.DesignSingle-blinded randomised controlled trial.SettingA research clinic within the regular child and adolescent mental health service in Stockholm, Sweden.ParticipantsSixty-seven adolescents (12–17 years) with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition diagnosis of OCD.InterventionsEither a 12-week, therapist-guided ICBT intervention or a wait list condition of equal duration.Primary outcome measuresCost data were collected at baseline and after treatment, including healthcare use, supportive resources, prescription drugs, prescription-free drugs, school absence and productivity loss, as well as the cost of ICBT. Health outcomes were defined as treatment responder rate and quality-adjusted life years gain. Bootstrapped mixed model analyses were conducted comparing incremental costs and health outcomes between the groups from the societal and healthcare perspectives.ResultsCompared with waitlist control, ICBT generated substantial societal cost savings averaging US$−144.98 (95% CI −159.79 to –130.16) per patient. The cost reductions were mainly driven by reduced healthcare use in the ICBT group. From the societal perspective, the probability of ICBT being cost saving compared with waitlist control was approximately 60%. From the healthcare perspective, the cost per additional responder to ICBT compared with waitlist control was approximately US$78.ConclusionsThe results suggest that therapist-guided ICBT is a cost-effective treatment and results in societal cost savings, compared with patients who do not receive evidence-based treatment. Since, at present, most patients with OCD do not have access to evidence-based treatments, the results have important implications for the increasingly strained national and healthcare budgets. Future studies should compare the cost-effectiveness of ICBT with regular face-to-face CBT.Trial registration numberNCT02191631.


2015 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie C. Edwards ◽  
Luella Engelhart ◽  
Eva M. H. Casamento ◽  
Matthew J. McGirt

OBJECT Despite multiple preventive strategies for reducing infection, up to 15% of patients with shunt catheters and 27% of patients with external ventricular drains (EVDs) may develop an infection. There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of measures to prevent hydrocephalus catheter infection from the hospital perspective. The objective of this study was to perform a cost-consequence analysis to assess the potential clinical and economic value of antibiotic-impregnated catheter (AIC) shunts and EVDs compared with non-AIC shunts and EVDs in the treatment of hydrocephalus from a hospital perspective. METHODS The authors used decision analytical techniques to assess the clinical and economic consequences of using antibiotic-impregnated shunts and EVDs from a hospital perspective. Model inputs were derived from the published, peer-reviewed literature. Clinical studies comparing infection rates and the clinical and economic impact of infections associated with the use of AICs and standard catheters (non-AICs) were evaluated. Outcomes assessed included infections, deaths due to infection, surgeries due to infection, and cost associated with shunt- and EVD-related infection. A subanalysis using only AIC shunt and EVD Level I evidence (randomized controlled trial results) was conducted as an alternate to the cumulative analysis of all of the AIC versus non-AIC studies (13 of the 14 shunt studies and 4 of the 6 EVD studies identified were observational). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine how changes in the values of uncertain parameters affected the results of the model. RESULTS In 100 patients requiring shunts, AICs may be associated with 0.5 fewer deaths, 71 fewer hospital days, 11 fewer surgeries, and $128,228 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. Results of the subanalysis showed that AICs may be associated with 1.9 fewer deaths, 1611 fewer hospital days, 25 fewer surgeries, and $346,616 of net savings in hospital costs due to decreased infection. The rate of decrease in infection with AIC shunts was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC shunts. In 100 patients requiring EVDs, AICs may be associated with 2.7 fewer deaths and 82 fewer hospital days due to infection. The relative risk of more severe neurological impairment was estimated to be 5.33 times greater with EVD infection. Decreases in infection with AIC EVDs resulted in an estimated $264,069 of net savings per 100 patients treated with AICs. Results of the subanalysis showed that AIC EVDs may be associated with 1.0 fewer deaths, 31 infection-related hospital days averted, and $74,631 saved per 100 patients treated with AIC EVDs. As was seen with AIC shunts, the rate of decrease in infection with AIC EVDs was shown to have the greatest impact on the cost savings realized with use of AIC EVDs. CONCLUSIONS The current value analysis demonstrates that evidence supports the use of AICs as effective and potentially cost-saving treatment.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042365
Author(s):  
Jessica Leight ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Vandana Sharma

ObjectivesExperience of intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with adverse health and psychosocial outcomes for women. However, rigorous economic evaluations of interventions targeting IPV prevention are rare. This paper analyses the cost-effectiveness of Unite for a Better Life (UBL), a gender-transformative intervention designed to prevent IPV and HIV risk behaviours among men, women and couples.DesignWe use an economic evaluation nested within a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trial, analysing financial and economic costs tracked contemporaneously.SettingUBL was implemented in rural southern Ethiopia between 2013 and 2015.ParticipantsThe randomised controlled trial included 6770 households in 64 villages.InterventionsUBL is an intervention delivered within the context of the Ethiopian coffee ceremony, a culturally established forum for community discussion, and designed to assist participants to build skills for healthy, non-violent, equitable relationships.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThis paper reports on the unit cost and cost-effectiveness of the interventions implemented. Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted.ResultsThe estimated annualised cost of developing and implementing UBL was 2015 US$296 772, or approximately 2015 US$74 per individual directly participating in the intervention and 2015 US$5 per person annually for each community-level beneficiary (woman of reproductive age in intervention communities). The estimated cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted was 2015 US$2726 for the sample of direct beneficiaries, and 2015 US$194 for the sample of all community-level beneficiaries.ConclusionsUBL is an effective and cost-effective intervention for the prevention of IPV in a low and middle-income country setting. Further research should explore strategies to quantify the positive effects of the intervention across other domains.Trial registration numberNCT02311699 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AEARCTR-0000211 (AEA Registry)


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 2397
Author(s):  
M. Rozaini Rosli ◽  
Chin F. Neoh ◽  
David B. Wu ◽  
Nazariah W. Hassan ◽  
Mahani Mahmud ◽  
...  

Background: Successful diabetes treatment requires commitment and understanding of disease management by the patients. Objective: This trial aimed to evaluate the programme effectiveness of home medication review by community pharmacists (HMR-CP) in optimising diabetes care and reducing medication wastage. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted on 166 patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) who were randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. The intervention group received HMR-CP at 0-month, 3-month, and 6-month. The primary outcome was haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) while clinical outcomes, anthropometric data, and humanistic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. For the intervention group, drug-related problems (DRP) were classified according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe Foundation (PCNE). Medication adherence was determined based on the Pill Counting Adherence Ratio (PCAR). The cost of medication wastage was calculated based on the total missed dose by the T2DM patients multiplied by the cost of medication. General linear model and generalised estimating equations were used to compare data across the different time-points within and between the groups, respectively. Results: No significant difference was observed in the demographic and anthropometric data at baseline between the two groups except for fasting blood glucose (FBG). There was a significant reduction in the HbA1c (-0.91%) and FBG (-1.62mmol/L) over the study period (p<0.05). A similar observation was noted in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and total cholesterol (TC) but not in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and anthropometric parameters. Both utility value and Michigan Diabetes Knowledge Test (MDKT) scores increased significantly over time. As for the intervention group, significant changes in PCAR (p<0.001) and the number of DRP (p<0.001) were noted. Conclusions: HMR-CP significantly improved the glycaemic control, QoL, medication adherence, and knowledge of T2DM patients as well as reduced the number of DRP and cost of medication wastage. However, the impact of HMR-CP on certain clinical and anthropometric parameters remains inconclusive and further investigation is warranted. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document