Dataset Information

Effect of integrated care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the cost effectiveness, cost utility, and cost-benefit of an integrated care programme compared with usual care for sick listed patients with chronic low back pain.

Design

Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up.

Setting

Primary care (10 physiotherapy practices, one occupational health service, one occupational therapy practice) and secondary care (five hospitals) in the Netherlands, 2005-9.

Participants

134 adults aged 18-65 sick listed because of chronic low back pain: 66 were randomised to integrated care and 68 to usual care.

Interventions

Integrated care consisted of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, with involvement of a supervisor, and a graded activity programme based on cognitive behavioural principles. Usual care was provided by general practitioners and occupational physicians according to Dutch guidelines.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was duration until sustainable return to work. The secondary outcome was quality adjusted life years (QALYs), measured using EuroQol.

Results

Total costs in the integrated care group (£13 165, SD £13 600) were significantly lower than in the usual care group (£18 475, SD £13 616). Cost effectiveness planes and acceptability curves showed that integrated care was cost effective compared with usual care for return to work and QALYs gained. The cost-benefit analyses showed that every £1 invested in integrated care would return an estimated £26. The net societal benefit of integrated care compared with usual care was £5744.

Conclusions

Implementation of an integrated care programme for patients sick listed with chronic low back pain has a large potential to significantly reduce societal costs, increase effectiveness of care, improve quality of life, and improve function on a broad scale. Integrated care therefore has large gains for patients and society as well as for employers.

SUBMITTER: Lambeek LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2995018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN:A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING:Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (?18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS:In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES:Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS:From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NTR2108; Results.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims at evaluating the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a guided and unguided internet-based intervention for chronic pain patients (ACTonPainguided and ACTonPainunguided) compared with a waitlist control group (CG) as well as the comparative cost-effectiveness of the guided and the unguided version.DesignThis is a health economic evaluation alongside a three-arm randomised controlled trial from a societal perspective. Assessments were conducted at baseline, 9?weeks and 6?months after randomisation.SettingParticipants were recruited through online and offline strategies and in collaboration with a health insurance company.Participants302 adults (?18 years, pain for at least 6?months) were randomly allocated to one of the three groups (ACTonPainguided, ACTonPainunguided, CG).InterventionsACTonPain consists of seven modules and is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. ACTonPainguided and ACTonPainunguided only differ in provision of human support.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMain outcomes of the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility analyses were meaningful change in pain interference (treatment response) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Economic evaluation estimates were the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio (ICER/ICUR).ResultsAt 6-month follow-up, treatment response and QALYs were highest in ACTonPainguided (44% and 0.280; mean costs = €6,945), followed by ACTonPainunguided (28% and 0.266; mean costs = €6,560) and the CG (16% and 0.244; mean costs = €6,908). ACTonPainguided vs CG revealed an ICER of €45 and an ICUR of €604.ACTonPainunguided dominated CG. At a willingness-to-pay of €0 the probability of being cost-effective was 50% for ACTonPainguided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained) and 67% for ACTonPainunguided (vs CG, for both treatment response and QALY gained). These probabilities rose to 95% when society's willingness-to-pay is €91,000 (ACTonPainguided) and €127,000 (ACTonPainunguided) per QALY gained. ACTonPainguided vs ACTonPainunguided revealed an ICER of €2,374 and an ICUR of €45,993.ConclusionsDepending on society's willingness-to-pay, ACTonPain is a potentially cost-effective adjunct to established pain treatment. ACTonPainunguided (vs CG) revealed lower costs at better health outcomes. However, uncertainty has to be considered. Direct comparison of the two interventions does not indicate a preference for ACTonPainguided.Trial registration numberDRKS00006183.

Project description:Pain affects quality of life and can result in absence from work. Treatment and/or prevention strategies for musculoskeletal pain-related long-term sick leave are currently undertaken in several health sectors. Moreover, there are few evidence-based guidelines for such treatment and prevention. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of 'Tailored Physical Activity' or 'Chronic Pain Self-Management Program' for sick-listed citizens with pain in the back and/or the upper body.This protocol describes the design of a parallel randomised controlled trial on the efficacy of 'Tailored Physical Activity' or a 'Chronic Pain Self-management Program' versus a reference group for sick-listed citizens with complaints of pain in the back or upper body. Participants will have been absent from work due to sick-listing for 3 to 9 weeks at the time of recruitment. All interventions will be performed at the 'Health Care Center' in the Sonderborg Municipality, and a minimum of 138 participants will be randomised into one of the three groups.All participants will receive 'Health Guidance', a (1.5-hour) individualised dialogue focusing on improving ways of living, based on assessments of risk behavior, motivation for change, level of self-care and personal resources. In addition, the experimental groups will receive either 'Tailored Physical Activity' (three 50-minute sessions/week over 10 weeks) or 'Chronic Pain Self-Management Program' (2.5-hours per week over 6 weeks). The reference group will receive only 'Health Guidance'.The primary outcome is the participants' sick-listed status at 3 and 12 months after baseline. The co-primary outcome is the time it takes to return to work. In addition, secondary outcomes include anthropometric measurements, functional capacity and self-reported number of sick days, musculoskeletal symptoms, general health, work ability, physical capacity, kinesiophobia, physical functional status, interpersonal problems and mental disorders.There are few evidence-based interventions for rehabilitation programmes assisting people with musculoskeletal pain-related work absence. This study will compare outcomes of interventions on return to work in order to increase the knowledge of evidence-based rehabilitation of sick-listed citizens to prevent long-term sick-leave and facilitate return to work.The trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01356784.