© 2025 SURF
(Sport)evenementen worden meestal met een economische impact analyse (EIA) geevalueerd. Op andere beleidsterreinen zijn maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyses (MKBA s) veel gebruikelijker. Voor de Dam tot Damloop zijn beide analyses gemaakt. Hiervoor zijn drie verschillende enquetes gehouden onder deelnemers, bezoekers en inwoners van Amsterdam. Om de vergelijking tussen de EIA en MKBA mogelijk te maken zijn ook diverse niet-markteffecten gewaardeerd die binnen de sportcontext normaal niet gewaardeerd worden. De vergelijking tussen de EIA en de MKBA laat grote verschillen in uitkomsten zien en toont aan dat een sportevenement beter voor het plezier dan voor extra bestedingen kan worden georganiseerd.
MULTIFILE
Background: In 2009, the Steering Committee for Pregnancy and Childbirth in the Netherlands recommended the implementation of continuous care during labor in order to improve perinatal outcomes. However, in current care, routine maternity caregivers are unable to provide this type of care, resulting in an implementation rate of less than 30%. Maternity care assistants (MCAs), who already play a nursing role in low risk births in the second stage of labor and in homecare during the postnatal period, might be able to fill this gap. In this study, we aim to explore the (cost) effectiveness of adding MCAs to routine first- and second-line maternity care, with the idea that these MCAs would offer continuous care to women during labor. Methods: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be performed comparing continuous care (CC) with care-as-usual (CAU). All women intending to have a vaginal birth, who have an understanding of the Dutch language and are > 18 years of age, will be eligible for inclusion. The intervention consists of the provision of continuous care by a trained MCA from the moment the supervising maternity caregiver establishes that labor has started. The primary outcome will be use of epidural analgesia (EA). Our secondary outcomes will be referrals from primary care to secondary care, caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, adverse outcomes associated with epidural (fever, augmentation of labor, prolonged labor, postpartum hemorrhage, duration of postpartum stay in hospital for mother and/or newborn), women’s satisfaction with the birth experience, cost-effectiveness, and a budget impact analysis. Cost effectiveness will be calculated by QALY per prevented EA based on the utility index from the EQ-5D and the usage of healthcare services. A standardized sensitivity analysis will be carried out to quantify the outcome in addition to a budget impact analysis. In order to show a reduction from 25 to 17% in the primary outcome (alpha 0.05 and bèta 0.20), taking into account an extra 10% sample size for multi-level analysis and an attrition rate of 10%, 2 × 496 women will be needed (n = 992). Discussion: We expect that adding MCAs to the routine maternity care team will result in a decrease in the use of epidural analgesia and subsequent costs without a reduction in patient satisfaction. It will therefore be a costeffective intervention. Trial registration: Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL8065. Registered 3 October 2019 - Retrospectively registered.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Cardiac Care Bridge (CCB) nurse-led transitional care program in older (≥70 years) cardiac patients compared to usual care.MethodsThe intervention group (n = 153) received the CCB program consisting of case management, disease management and home-based cardiac rehabilitation in the transition from hospital to home on top of usual care and was compared with the usual care group (n = 153). Outcomes included a composite measure of first all-cause unplanned hospital readmission or mortality, Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and societal costs within six months follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Statistical uncertainty surrounding Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) was estimated by using bootstrapped seemingly unrelated regression.ResultsNo significant between group differences in the composite outcome of readmission or mortality nor in societal costs were observed. QALYs were statistically significantly lower in the intervention group, mean difference -0.03 (95% CI: -0.07; -0.02). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the maximum probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.31 at a Willingness To Pay (WTP) of €0,00 and 0.14 at a WTP of €50,000 per composite outcome prevented and 0.32 and 0.21, respectively per QALY gained.ConclusionThe CCB program was on average more expensive and less effective compared to usual care, indicating that the CCB program is dominated by usual care. Therefore, the CCB program cannot be considered cost-effective compared to usual care.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Blended physiotherapy, in which physiotherapy sessions and an online application are integrated, might support patients in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce disease related costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise) compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee, from the societal as well as the healthcare perspective.METHODS: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 108 patients received e-Exercise, consisting of physiotherapy sessions and a web-application, and 99 patients received usual physiotherapy. Clinical outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L), physical functioning (HOOS/KOOS) and physical activity (Actigraph Accelerometer). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.RESULTS: Intervention costs and medication costs were significantly lower in e-Exercise compared to usual physiotherapy. Total societal costs and total healthcare costs did not significantly differ between groups. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between groups. For physical functioning and physical activity, the maximum probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was moderate (< 0.82) from both perspectives. For QALYs, the probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was 0.68/0.84 at a willingness to pay of 10,000 Euro and 0.70/0.80 at a willingness to pay of 80,000 Euro per gained QALY, from respectively the societal and the healthcare perspective.CONCLUSIONS: E-Exercise itself was significantly cheaper compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, but not cost-effective from the societal- as well as healthcare perspective. The decision between both interventions can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4224 (25 October 2013).
ObjectiveTo compare cost effectiveness of endovascular revascularisation (ER) and supervised exercise therapy (SET) as primary treatment for patients with intermittent claudication (IC) due to iliac artery obstruction.MethodsCost utility analysis from a restricted societal perspective and time horizon of 12 months. Patients were included in a multicentre randomised controlled trial (SUPER study, NCT01385774, NTR2648) which compared effectiveness of ER and SET. Health status and health related quality of life (HRQOL) were measured using the Euroqol 5 dimensions 3 levels (EQ5D-3L) and VascuQol-25-NL. Incremental costs were determined per allocated treatment and use of healthcare during follow up. Effectiveness of treatment was determined in quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The difference between treatment groups was calculated by an incremental cost utility ratio (ICER).ResultsSome 240 patients were included, and complete follow up was available for 206 patients (ER 111 , SET 95). The mean costs for patients allocated to ER were €4 031 and €2 179 for SET, a mean difference of €1 852 (95% bias corrected and accelerated [bca] bootstrap confidence interval 1 185 – 2 646). The difference in QALYs during follow up was 0.09 (95% bcaCI 0.04 – 0.13) in favour of ER. The ICER per QALY was €20 805 (95% bcaCI 11 053 – 45 561). The difference in VascuQol sumscore was 0.64 (95% bcaCI 0.39 – 0.91), again in favour of ER.ConclusionER as a primary treatment, results in slightly better health outcome and higher QALYs and HRQOL during 12 months of follow up. Although these differences are statistically significant, clinical relevance must be discussed due to the small differences and relatively high cost of ER as primary treatment.
MULTIFILE
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) compared to an active control condition (ACC) to increase the social participation (in competitive employment, unpaid work, education, and meaningful daily activities) of individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). ACC can be described as treatment as usual but with an active component, namely the explicit assignment of providing support with rehabilitation goals in the area of social participation. Method: In a randomized clinical trial with 188 individuals with SMIs, BPR (n = 98) was compared to ACC (n=90). Costs were assessed with the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TIC-P). Outcome measures for the cost-effectiveness analysis were incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost per proportional change in social participation. Budget Impact was investigated using four implementation scenarios and two costing variants. Results: Total costs per participant at 12-month follow-up were e 12,886 in BPR and e 12,012 in ACC, a non-significant difference. There were no differences with regard to social participation or QALYs. Therefore, BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. Types of expenditure with the highest costs were in order of magnitude: supported and sheltered housing, inpatient care, outpatient care, and organized activities. Estimated budget impact of wide BPR implementation ranged from cost savings to e190 million, depending on assumptions regarding uptake. There were no differences between the two costing variants meaning that from a health insurer perspective, there would be no additional costs if BPR was implemented on a wider scale in mental health care institutions. Conclusions: This was the first study to investigate BPR cost-effectiveness and budget impact. The results showed that BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. When interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of BPR was investigated in the area of social participation, while BPR was designed to offer support in all rehabilitation areas. Therefore, more studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the method as a whole.
