scholarly journals Comparing the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of a new community in-reach rehabilitation service with the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of an established hospital-based rehabilitation service for older people: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with microcost and qualitative analysis – the Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) study

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Opinder Sahota ◽  
Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob ◽  
Fiona Marshall ◽  
Alan Montgomery ◽  
Wei Tan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Rehabilitation Service ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

BackgroundOlder people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital as a medical emergency. Compared with the care of younger patients, their care is more challenging, their stay in hospital is much longer, their risk of hospital-acquired problems is much higher and their 28-day readmission rate is much greater.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness, microcosts and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service in patients aged ≥ 70 years.MethodsA pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study and parallel qualitative appraisal was undertaken in a large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Participants were individually randomised to the intervention (CIRACT service) or standard care (THB-Rehab service). The primary outcome was hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes were readmission within 28 and 91 days post discharge and super spell bed-days (total time in NHS care), functional ability, comorbidity and health-related quality of life, all measured at day 91, together with the microcosts and cost-effectiveness of the two services. A qualitative appraisal provided an explanatory understanding of the organisation, delivery and experience of the CIRACT service from the perspective of key stakeholders and patients.ResultsIn total, 250 participants were randomised (n = 125 CIRACT service,n = 125 THB-Rehab service). There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service (median 8 vs. 9 days). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes. The cost of delivering the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service, as determined from the microcost analysis, was £302 and £303 per patient respectively. The overall mean costs (including NHS and personal social service costs) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services calculated from the Client Service Receipt Inventory were £3744 and £3603 respectively [mean cost difference £144, 95% confidence interval –£1645 to £1934] and the mean quality-adjusted life-years for the CIRACT service were 0.846 and for the THB-Rehab service were 0.806. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was £2022 per quality-adjusted life-year. Although the CIRACT service was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it, the emergent configuration of the service working across organisational and occupational boundaries was not easily incorporated by the current established community services.ConclusionsThe CIRACT service did not reduce hospital length of stay or short-term readmission rates compared with the standard THB-Rehab service, although it was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it. The estimated ICER appears cost-effective although it is subject to much uncertainty, as shown by points spanning all four quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. Microcosting work-sampling methodology provides a useful method to estimate the cost of service provision. Limitations in sample size, which may have excluded a smaller reduction in length of stay, and lack of blinding, which may have introduced some cross-contamination between the two groups, must be recognised. Reducing hospital length of stay and hospital readmissions remains a priority for the NHS. Further studies are necessary, which should be powered with larger sample sizes and use cluster randomisation (to reduce bias) but, more importantly, should include a more integrated community health-care model as part of the CIRACT team.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94393315.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Prehospital continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute respiratory distress: a randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-210256
Author(s):  
Judith C Finn ◽  
Deon Brink ◽  
Nicole Mckenzie ◽  
Antony Garcia ◽  
Hideo Tohira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Positive Airway Pressure ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Severe Respiratory Distress ◽  
Median Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) versus usual care for prehospital patients with severe respiratory distress.MethodsWe conducted a parallel group, individual patient, non-blinded randomised controlled trial in Western Australia between March 2016 and December 2018. Eligible patients were aged ≥40 years with acute severe respiratory distress of non-traumatic origin and unresponsive to initial treatments by emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics. Patients were randomised (1:1) to usual care or usual care plus CPAP. The primary outcomes were change in dyspnoea score and change in RR at ED arrival, and hospital length of stay.Results708 patients were randomly assigned (opaque sealed envelope) to usual care (n=346) or CPAP (n=362). Compared with usual care, patients randomised to CPAP had a greater reduction in dyspnoea scores (usual care −1.0, IQR −3.0 to 0.0 vs CPAP −3.5, IQR −5.2 to −2.0), median difference −2.0 (95% CI −2.5 to −1.6); and RR (usual care −4.0, IQR −9.0 to 0.0 min-1 vs CPAP −8.0, IQR −14.0 to −4.0 min-1), median difference −4.0 (95% CI −5.0 to −4.0) min-1. There was no difference in hospital length of stay (usual care 4.2, IQR 2.1 to 7.8 days vs CPAP 4.8, IQR 2.5 to 7.9 days) for the n=624 cases admitted to hospital, median difference 0.36 (95% CI −0.17 to 0.90).ConclusionsThe use of prehospital CPAP by EMS paramedics reduced dyspnoea and tachypnoea in patients with acute respiratory distress but did not impact hospital length of stay.Trial registration numberACTRN12615001180505.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intimate partner violence prevention intervention targeting men, women and couples in rural Ethiopia: evidence from the Unite for a Better Life randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042365
Author(s):  
Jessica Leight ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Vandana Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

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)

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document