Background: Impaired upper extremity function due to muscle paresis or paralysis has a major impact on independent living and quality of life (QoL). Assistive technology (AT) for upper extremity function (i.e. dynamic arm supports and robotic arms) can increase a client’s independence. Previous studies revealed that clients often use AT not to their full potential, due to suboptimal provision of these devices in usual care. Objective: To optimize the process of providing AT for impaired upper extremity function and to evaluate its (cost-)effectiveness compared with care as usual. Methods: Development of a protocol to guide the AT provision process in an optimized way according to generic Dutch guidelines; a quasi-experimental study with non-randomized, consecutive inclusion of a control group (n = 48) receiving care as usual and of an intervention group (optimized provision process) (n = 48); and a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis from societal perspective will be performed. The primary outcome is clients’ satisfaction with the AT and related services, measured with the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with AT (Dutch version; D-QUEST). Secondary outcomes comprise complaints of the upper extremity, restrictions in activities, QoL, medical consumption and societal cost. Measurements are taken at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months follow-up.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of the estimated 11–25 years reduced life expectancy for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This excess cardiovascular mortality is primarily attributable to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. Obesity is associated with a sedentary lifestyle, limited physical activity and an unhealthy diet. Lifestyle interventions for persons with SMI seem promising in reducing weight and cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention among persons with SMI in an outpatient treatment setting. Methods: The Serious Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial including an economic evaluation in approximately 18 Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. The intervention aims at a healthy diet and increased physical activity. Randomisation takes place at the level of participating FACT-teams. We aim to include 260 outpatients with SMI and a body mass index of 27 or higher who will either receive the lifestyle intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 months and consists of weekly 2-h group meetings delivered over the first 6 months. The next 6 months will include monthly group meetings, supplemented with regular individual contacts. Primary outcome is weight loss. Secondary outcomes are metabolic parameters (waist circumference, lipids, blood pressure, glucose), quality of life and health related self-efficacy. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include costs of the lifestyle program, health care utilization, medication and lost productivity. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. Discussion: The SMILE intervention for persons with SMI will provide important information on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and delivery of a group-based lifestyle intervention in a Dutch outpatient treatment setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Registration NL6660, registration date: 16 November 2017.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Falls and fall-related injuries among older adults are a serious threat to the quality of life and result in high healthcare and societal costs. Despite evidence that falls can be prevented by fall prevention programmes, practical barriers may challenge the implementation of these programmes. In this study, we will investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of In Balance, a fourteen-week, low-cost group fall prevention intervention, that is widely implemented in community-dwelling older adults with an increased fall risk in the Netherlands. Moreover, we will be the first to include cost-effectiveness for this intervention. Based on previous evidence of the In Balance intervention in pre-frail older adults, we expect this intervention to be (cost-)effective after implementation-related adjustments on the target population and duration of the intervention.METHODS: This study is a single-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial. The target sample will consist of 256 community-dwelling non-frail and pre-frail adults of 65 years or older with an increased risk of falls. The intervention group receives the In Balance intervention as it is currently widely implemented in Dutch healthcare, which includes an educational component and physical exercises. The physical exercises are based on Tai Chi principles and focus on balance and strength. The control group receives general written physical activity recommendations. Primary outcomes are the number of falls and fall-related injuries over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes consist of physical performance measures, physical activity, confidence, health status, quality of life, process evaluation and societal costs. Mixed model analyses will be conducted for both primary and secondary outcomes and will be stratified for non-frail and pre-frail adults.DISCUSSION: This trial will provide insight into the clinical and societal impact of an implemented Dutch fall prevention intervention and will have major benefits for older adults, society and health insurance companies. In addition, results of this study will inform healthcare professionals and policy makers about timely and (cost-)effective prevention of falls in older adults.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NL9248 (registered February 13, 2021).
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient education, advice on returning to normal activities and (home-based) exercise therapy are established treatment options for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on physical functioning and prevention of recurrent events largely depends on patient self-management, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour. Therefore we have developed e-Exercise LBP, a blended intervention in which a smartphone application is integrated within face-to-face care. E-Exercise LBP aims to improve patient self-management skills and adherence to exercise and physical activity recommendations and consequently improve the effectiveness of physiotherapy on patients’ physical functioning. The aim of this study is to investigate the short- (3 months) and long-term (12 and 24 months) effectiveness on physical functioning and cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP in comparison to usual primary care physiotherapy in patients with LBP. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a prospective, multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 208 patients with LBP pain were treated with either e-Exercise LBP or usual care physiotherapy. E-Exercise LBP is stratified based on the risk for developing persistent LBP. Physiotherapists are able to monitor and evaluate treatment progress between face-to-face sessions using patient input from the smartphone application in order to optimize physiotherapy care. The smartphone application contains video-supported self-management information, video-supported exercises and a goal-oriented physical activity module. The primary outcome is physical functioning at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity, adherence to prescribed (home-based) exercises and recommended physical activity behaviour, self-efficacy, patient activation and health-related quality of life. All measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 12 and 24months after inclusion. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and the healthcare perspective and will assess cost-effectiveness of e-Exercise LBP compared to usual physiotherapy at 12 and 24months. Discussion: A multi-phase development and implementation process using the Center for eHealth Research Roadmap for the participatory development of eHealth was used for development and evaluation. The findings will provide evidence on the effectiveness of blended care for patients with LBP and help to enhance future implementation of blended physiotherapy.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Early accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment, which is the least expensive, but not the most accurate.Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. The actual effect on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and the costs of the introduction of this device, however, are unknown. Before we decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care, a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary.METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centres: Beverwijk, Groningen and Rotterdam. All patients treated as outpatient or admitted to a burn centre within 5 days post burn, with burns of indeterminate depth (burns not obviously superficial or full thickness) and a total body surface area burned of ≤ 20% are eligible. A total of 200 patients will be included. Burn depth will be diagnosed by both clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging between 2-5 days post burn in all patients. Subsequently, patients are randomly divided in two groups: 'new diagnostic strategy' versus 'current diagnostic strategy'. The results of the LDI-scan will only be provided to the treating clinician in the 'new diagnostic strategy' group. The main endpoint is the effect of LDI on wound healing time.In addition we measure: a) the effect of LDI on other patient outcomes (quality of life, scar quality), b) the effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and c) the effect of LDI on total (medical and non-medical) costs and cost-effectiveness.DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to our current knowledge on the use of LDI in burn care and will provide evidence on its cost-effectiveness.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01489540.
DOCUMENT
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).
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Since 2011, a tailored, interdisciplinary head and neck rehabilitation (IHNR) program, covered by the basic healthcare insurance, is offered to advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) patients in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). This program is developed to preserve or restore patients' functioning, and to optimize health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It applies an integrated approach to define patients' individual goals and provide rehabilitation care throughout the cancer care continuum. The aim of the current study is to assess the (cost-) effectiveness of the IHNR approach compared to usual supportive care (USC) consisting of monodisciplinary and multidisciplinary care in advanced HNC patients.METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study is designed to compare (cost-)effectiveness of the IHNR to USC for advanced HNC patients treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT). The primary outcome is HRQoL represented in the EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score. Functional HRQoL, societal participation, utility values, return to work (RTW), unmet needs (UN), patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes are secondary outcomes, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-H&N35, USER-P, EQ-5D-5 L, and study-specific questionnaires, respectively. Both patient groups (required sample size: 64 per arm) are requested to complete the questionnaires at: diagnosis (baseline; T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), 9 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after start of medical treatment. Differences in outcomes between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using mixed effects models, Chi-square test and descriptive statistics. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be performed by means of a Markov decision model. The CEA will be performed using a societal perspective of the Netherlands.DISCUSSION: This prospective multicenter study will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of IHNR compared to USC. RTW and societal participation, included as secondary outcomes, have not been studied sufficiently yet in cancer rehabilitation. Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has not yet been implemented as usual care in all centers, which offers the opportunity to perform a controlled clinical study. If demonstrated to be (cost-)effective, national provision of the program can probably be advised.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry on April 24th 2018 ( NTR7140 ).
DOCUMENT
Objectives: In patients with burns an early accurate diagnosis of burn depth is essential to determine optimal treatment. The combination of Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and clinical assessment leads to an accurate estimate of burn depth. However, the actual effects of the introduction of LDI on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and costs are unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI in burn care. The effects of LDI on decision-making, clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness were assessed. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in all three Dutch burn centres, including subsequent patients with burns of indeterminate depth. In the standard care (SC) group, burn depth and treatment choices were based on clinical assessment only, in the other group (LDI) clinical assessment and LDI results were combined. Primary outcome was the effect of the introduction of LDI on wound healing time. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a bottom up approach, following the micro-costing method. Results: Mean time to wound healing from randomisation was 14.3 days in the LDI group and 15.5 days in the SC group (p= 0.258). In the subgroup of clinical patients requiring surgery earlier decision for surgery and a shorter wound healing time were observed in the LDI group (16.0 versus 19.9 days, p= 0.029). Mean total costs per patient were € 18 549 versus € 18 896 (p= 0.837). Conclusions: LDI proved to provide guidance for therapeutic decisions with a significantly shorter wound healing time in the subgroup of clinical patients requiring surgery. When time to surgery can be reduced by 2.4 days, similar to the time to decision for surgery in our study, cost savings of € 794 per scanned patient can be achieved.
DOCUMENT
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
