Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the cost-effectiveness of PhysioDirect with usual physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal problems.

Design

(1) Cost-consequences comparing cost to the National Health Service (NHS), to patients, and the value of lost productivity with a range of outcomes. (2) Cost-utility analysis comparing cost to the NHS with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs).

Setting

Four physiotherapy services in England.

Participants

Adults (18+) referred by their general practitioner or self-referred for physiotherapy.

Interventions

PhysioDirect involved telephone assessment and advice followed by face-to-face care if needed. Usual care patients were placed on a waiting list for face-to-face care.

Primary and secondary outcomes

Primary clinical outcome: physical component summary from the SF-36v2 at 6 months. Also included in the cost-consequences: Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile; a Global Improvement Score; response to treatment; patient satisfaction; waiting time. Outcome for the cost-utility analysis: QALYs.

Results

2249 patients took part (1506 PhysioDirect; 743 usual care). (1) Cost-consequences: there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in the cost of physiotherapy, other NHS services, personal costs or value of time off work. Outcomes were also similar. (2) Cost-utility analysis based on complete cases (n=1272). Total NHS costs, including the cost of physiotherapy were higher in the PhysioDirect group by £19.30 (95% CI -£37.60 to £76.19) and there was a QALY gain of 0.007 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.016). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2889 and the net monetary benefit at ?=£20 000 was £117 (95% CI -£86 to £310).

Conclusions

PhysioDirect may be a cost-effective alternative to usual physiotherapy care, though only with careful management of staff time. Physiotherapists providing the service must be more fully occupied than was possible under trial conditions: consideration should be given to the scale of operation, opening times of the service and flexibility in the methods used to contact patients.

SUBMITTER: Hollinghurst S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3796275 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

Hollinghurst Sandra S Coast Joanna J Busby John J Bishop Annette A Foster Nadine E NE Franchini Angelo A Grove Sean S Hall Jeanette J Hopper Cherida C Kaur Surinder S Montgomery Alan A AA Salisbury Chris C

BMJ open 20131003 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the cost-effectiveness of PhysioDirect with usual physiotherapy care for patients with musculoskeletal problems.<h4>Design</h4>(1) Cost-consequences comparing cost to the National Health Service (NHS), to patients, and the value of lost productivity with a range of outcomes. (2) Cost-utility analysis comparing cost to the NHS with Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs).<h4>Setting</h4>Four physiotherapy services in England.<h4>Participants</h4>Adults (18+) referred by ...[more]

PMID: 24091423

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness, effect on waiting times, and patient acceptability of PhysioDirect services in patients with musculoskeletal problems, compared with usual care.DesignPragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence in clinical effectiveness. Patients were individually randomised in a 2:1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care.SettingFour physiotherapy services in England.ParticipantsAdults (aged ≥ 18 years) referred by general practitioners or self referred for musculoskeletal physiotherapy.InterventionsPhysioDirect services invited patients to telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice, followed by face-to-face physiotherapy if necessary. Usual care involved patients joining a waiting list for face-to-face treatment.Main outcome measuresNumbers of appointments, waiting time for treatment, and non-attendance rates. Primary outcome was physical health (SF-36v2 physical component score) at six months. Secondary outcomes included four other measures of health outcome, mental component score and scales from the SF-36v2, time lost from work, and patient satisfaction and preference. Participants were not blind to allocation, but outcome data were collected blind to allocation.ResultsOf 1506 patients allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care, 85% provided primary outcome data at six months (1283 and 629 patients, respectively). PhysioDirect patients had fewer face-to-face appointments than usual care patients (mean 1.91 v 3.11; incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.65)), a shorter waiting time (median 7 days v 34 days; arm time ratio 0.32 (0.29 to 0.35)), and lower rates of non-attendance (incidence rate ratio 0.55 (0.41 to 0.73)). After six months' follow-up, the SF-36v2 physical component score was equivalent between groups (adjusted difference in means -0.01 (-0.80 to 0.79)). Health outcome measures suggested a trend towards slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at six week follow-up and no difference at six months. There was no difference in time lost from work. PhysioDirect patients were no more satisfied with access to physiotherapy than usual care patients, but had slightly lower satisfaction overall at six months (difference in satisfaction -3.8% (-7.3% to -0.3%); P=0.031). PhysioDirect patients were more likely than usual care patients to prefer PhysioDirect in future. No adverse events were detected.ConclusionsPhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual care, provides faster access to physiotherapy, and seems to be safe. However, it could be associated with slightly lower patient satisfaction.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN55666618.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing worldwide. Obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for both the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, international guidelines recommend all patients with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight receive support to lose weight. However, few overweight patients with this condition receive care to support weight loss. Telephone-based interventions are one potential solution to provide scalable care to the many patients with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese.MethodsAn economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between May 19 and June 30, 2015, 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the utility measure and knee pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were the clinical measures of effect. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. Data was collected at baseline, 6?weeks and 26?weeks. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.ResultsMean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were $493 (95%CI: -3513 to 5363) for healthcare costs, $-32 (95%CI: -73 to 13) for medication costs, and $125 (95%CI: -151 to 486) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1197 (95%CI: -2887 to 6106). For QALYs and all clinical measures of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.36 at all willingness-to-pay values.ConclusionsFrom a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis.Trial registration numberACTRN12615000490572 , registered 18th May 2015.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess whether telephone coaching is a cost-effective method for increasing physical activity and health-related quality of life for insufficiently active adults presenting to an ambulatory care clinic in a public hospital. DESIGN:An economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Participants were recruited from an ambulatory care clinic in a public hospital in regional Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Seventy-two adults (aged 18-69) deemed insufficiently physically active via self-report. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomised to either an intervention group that received an education session and eight sessions of telephone coaching over a 12-week period, or to a control group that received the education session only. The intervention used in the telephone coaching was integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary health outcome was change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), objectively measured via accelerometry. The secondary outcome was the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) determined by the 12-item Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire. Outcome data were measured at baseline, postintervention (3 months) and follow-up (6 months). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each outcome. Non-parametric bootstrapping techniques and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty. RESULTS:The mean intervention cost was $279±$13 per person. At 6 months follow-up, relative to control, the intervention group undertook 18 more minutes of daily MVPA at an ICER of $15/min for each additional minute of MVPA. With regard to QALYs, the intervention yielded an ICER of $36 857 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to varied assumptions. CONCLUSION:Telephone coaching was a low-cost strategy for increasing MVPA and QALYs in insufficiently physically active ambulatory care hospital patients. Additional research could explore the potential economic impact of the intervention from a broader healthcare perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ANZCTR: ACTRN12616001331426.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to issues with timely access and high non-attendance rates for Emergency Department (ED) physiotherapy, a telephone assessment and advice service was evaluated as part of a quality improvement project. This telehealth option requires minimal resources, with the added benefit of allowing the healthcare professional streamline care. A primary aim was to investigate whether this service model can reduce wait times and non-attendance rates, compared to usual care. A secondary aim was to evaluate service user acceptability.MethodsThis was a single-site quality improvement cohort study that compares data on wait time to first physiotherapy contact, non-attendance rates and participant satisfaction between patients that opted for a service based on initial telephone assessment and advice, versus routine face-to-face appointments. 116 patients were referred for ED physiotherapy over the 3-month pilot at the ED and out-patient physiotherapy department, XMercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 91 patients (78%) opted for the telephone assessment and advice service, with 40% (n=36) contacting the service. 25 patients (22%) opted for the face-to-face service. Data on wait time and non-attendance rates was gathered using the hospital data reporting system. Satisfaction data was collected on discharge using a satisfaction survey adapted from the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire. Independent-samples t-test or Mann Whitney U Test was utilised depending on the distribution of the data. For categorical data, Chi-Square tests were performed. A level of significance of p ≤ 0.05 was set for this study.ResultsThose that contacted the telephone assessment and advice service had a significantly reduced wait time (median 6 days; 3-8 days) compared to those that opted for usual care (median 35 days; 19-39 days) (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant between-group differences for non-attendance rates or satisfaction.ConclusionA telephone assessment and advice service may be useful in minimising delays for advice for those referred to ED Physiotherapy for musculoskeleltal problems. This telehealth option appears to be broadly acceptable and since it can be introduced rapidly, it may be helpful in triaging referrals and minimising face-to-face consultations, in line with COVID-19 recommendations. However, a large scale randomised controlled trial is warranted to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundOnly about a third of people with asthma attend an annual review. Clinicians need to identify cost-effective ways to improve access and ensure regular review.AimTo compare the cost-effectiveness of nurse-led telephone with face-to-face asthma reviews.Design of studyCost-effectiveness analysis based on a 3-month randomised controlled trial.SettingFour general practices in England.MethodAdults due an asthma review were randomised to telephone or face-to-face consultations. Trial nurses recorded proportion reviewed, duration of consultation, and abortive calls/missed appointments. Data on use of healthcare resources were extracted from GP records. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health service perspective; sensitivity analyses were based on proportion reviewed and duration of consultation.ResultsA total of 278 people with asthma were randomised to surgery (n = 141) or telephone (n = 137) review. Onehundred-and-one (74%) of those with asthma in the telephone group were reviewed versus 68 (48%) in the surgery group (P <0.001). Telephone consultations were significantly shorter (mean duration telephone = 11.19 minutes [standard deviation {SD} = 4.79] versus surgery = 21.87 minutes [SD = 6.85], P <0.001). Total respiratory healthcare costs per patient over 3 months were similar (telephone = pounds sterling 64.49 [SD = 73.33] versus surgery = pounds sterling 59.48 [SD = 66.02], P = 0.55). Total costs of providing 101 telephone versus 68 face-to-face asthma reviews were also similar (telephone = pounds sterling 725.84 versus surgery = pounds sterling 755.70), but mean cost per consultation achieved was lower in the telephone arm (telephone = pounds sterling 7.19 [SD = 2.49] versus surgery = pounds sterling 11.11 [SD = 3.50]; mean difference = - pounds sterling 3.92 [95% confidence interval = - pounds sterling 4.84 to pounds sterling 3.01], P <0.001).ConclusionsTelephone consultations enable a greater proportion of asthma patients to be reviewed at no additional cost to the health service. This mode of delivering care improves access and reduces cost per consultation achieved.

Project description:Evidence for the use of telephone consultation in childhood inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost consequences of telephone consultation compared with the usual out-patient face-to-face consultation for young people with IBD.We conducted a randomised-controlled trial in Manchester, UK, between July 12, 2010 and June 30, 2013. Young people (aged 8-16 years) with IBD were randomized to receive telephone consultation or face-to-face consultation for 24 months. The primary outcome measure was the paediatric IBD-specific IMPACT quality of life (QOL) score at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction with consultations, disease course, anthropometric measures, proportion of consultations attended, duration of consultations, and costs to the UK National Health Service (NHS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02319798.Eighty six patients were randomised to receive either telephone consultation (n = 44) or face-to-face consultation (n = 42). Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. At 12 months, there was no evidence of difference in QOL scores (estimated treatment effect in favour of the telephone consultation group was 5.7 points, 95% CI - 2.9 to 14.3; p = 0.19). Mean consultation times were 9.8 min (IQR 8 to 12.3) for telephone consultation, and 14.3 min (11.6 to 17.0) for face-to-face consultation with an estimated reduction (95% CI) of 4.3 (2.8 to 5.7) min in consultation times (p < 0.001). Telephone consultation had a mean cost of UK£35.41 per patient consultation compared with £51.12 for face-face consultation, difference £15.71 (95% CI 11.8-19.6; P < 0.001).We found no suggestion of inferiority of telephone consultation compared with face-to-face consultation with regard to improvements in QOL scores, and telephone consultation reduced consultation time and NHS costs. Telephone consultation is a cost-effective alternative to face-to-face consultation for the routine outpatient follow-up of children and adolescents with IBD.Research for Patient Benefit Programme, UK National Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Primary and secondary outcomes

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for patients with musculoskeletal problems: economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets