Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of one year dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of post-diagnosis dementia treatment and coordination of care by memory clinics compared to general practitioners' care.

Methods

A multicentre randomised trial with 175 community dwelling patients newly diagnosed with mild to moderate dementia, and their informal caregivers, with twelve months' follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal point of view and presented as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year. To establish cost-effectiveness, a cost-utility analysis was conducted using utilities based on the EQ-5D. Uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (difference in costs divided by difference in effects) was calculated by bootstrapping from the original data.

Results

Compared to general practitioners' care, treatment by the memory clinics was on average €1024 (95% CI: -€7723 to €5674) cheaper, and showed a non-significant decrease of 0.025 (95% CI: -0.114 to 0.064) quality adjusted life years. The incremental cost-effectiveness point estimate from the bootstrap simulation was € 41 442 per QALY lost if one would use memory clinic care instead of general practitioner care.

Conclusion

No evidence was found that memory clinics were more cost-effective compared to general practitioners with regard to post-diagnosis treatment and coordination of care of patients with dementia in the first year after diagnosis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00554047.

SUBMITTER: Meeuwsen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3839971 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of one year dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

Meeuwsen Els E Melis René R van der Aa Geert G Golüke-Willemse Gertie G de Leest Benoit B van Raak Frank F Schölzel-Dorenbos Carla C Verheijen Desiree D Verhey Frans F Visser Marieke M Wolfs Claire C Adang Eddy E Olde Rikkert Marcel M

PloS one 20131125 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of post-diagnosis dementia treatment and coordination of care by memory clinics compared to general practitioners' care.<h4>Methods</h4>A multicentre randomised trial with 175 community dwelling patients newly diagnosed with mild to moderate dementia, and their informal caregivers, with twelve months' follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal point of view and presented as incremental cost per quality adjusted life year. To e ...[more]

PMID: 24282511

Similar Datasets

Project description:General Practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the follow-up of patients after deliberate self-poisoning (DSP). The aim was to examine whether structured follow-up by GPs increased the content of, adherence to, and satisfaction with treatment after discharge from emergency departments.This was a multicentre, randomised trial with blinded assignment. Five emergency departments and general practices in the catchment area participated. 202 patients discharged from emergency departments after DSP were assigned. The intervention was structured follow-up by the GP over a 6-month period with a minimum of five consultations, accompanied by written guidelines for the GPs with suggestions for motivating patients to follow treatment, assessing personal problems and suicidal ideation, and availability in the case of suicidal crisis. Outcome measures were data retrieved from the Register for the control and payment of reimbursements to health service providers (KUHR) and by questionnaires mailed to patients and GPs. After 3 and 6 months, the frequency and content of GP contact, and adherence to GP consultations and treatment in general were registered. Satisfaction with general treatment received and with the GP was measured by the EUROPEP scale.Patients in the intervention group received significantly more consultations than the control group (mean 6.7 vs. 4.5 (p = 0.004)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the time their GP took to listen to their personal problems (93.1% vs. 59.4% (p = 0.002)) and with the fact that the GP included them in medical decisions (87.5% vs. 54. 8% (p = 0.009)). The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the treatment in general than the control group (79% vs. 51% (p = 0.026)).Guidelines and structured, enhanced follow-up by the GP after the discharge of the DSP patient increased the number of consultations and satisfaction with aftercare in general practice. Consistently with previous research, there is still a need for interventional studies.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342809. Registered 18 April 2011.

Project description:To assess whether systematic follow-up by general practitioners (GPs) of cases of deliberate self-poisoning (DSP) by their patients decreases psychiatric symptoms and suicidal behaviour compared with current practice.Randomised clinical trial with two parallel groups.General practices in Oslo and the eastern part of Akershus County.Patients aged 18-75 years admitted to hospital for DSP. We excluded patients diagnosed with psychoses, without a known GP, those not able to complete a questionnaire, and patients admitted to psychiatric in-patient care or other institutions where their GP could not follow them immediately after discharge.The GPs received a written guideline, contacted the patients and scheduled a consultation within one week after discharge, and then provided regular consultations for six months. We randomised the patients to either intervention (n = 78) or treatment as usual (n = 98).Primary outcome measure was the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (SSI). Secondary outcomes were Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), self-reported further self-harm and treatment for DSP in a general hospital or an emergency medical agency (EMA). We assessed patients on entry to the trial and at three and six months. We collected data from interviews, self-report questionnaires, and hospital and EMA medical records.There were no significant differences between the groups in SSI, BDI, or BHS mean scores or change from baseline to three or six months. During follow-up, self-reported DSP was 39.5% in the intervention group vs. 15.8% in controls (P = 0.009). Readmissions to general hospitals were similar (13% in both groups (P = 0.963), while DSP episodes treated at EMAs were 17% in the intervention group and 7% in the control group (P = 0.103).Structured follow-up by GPs after an episode of DSP had no significant effect on suicide ideation, depression or hopelessness. There was no significant difference in repeated episodes of DSP in hospitals or EMAs. However, the total number of incidents of deliberate self-harm reported by the patients was significantly higher in the intervention group.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342809.

Project description:ObjectivesThe study was designed to examine the sufficiency of general practitioners' (GPs) follow-up of patients on sick leave, assessed by independent medical evaluators.DesignCross-sectional study SETTING: Primary health care in the Western part of Norway. The study reuses data from a randomised controlled trial-the Norwegian independent medical evaluation trial (NIME trial).ParticipantsThe intervention group in the NIME trial: Sick-listed workers having undergone an independent medical evaluation by an experienced GP at 6 months of unremitting sick leave (n=937; 57% women). In the current study, the participants were distributed into six exposure groups defined by gender and main sick leave diagnoses (women/musculoskeletal, men/musculoskeletal, women/mental, men/mental, women/all other diagnoses and men/all other diagnoses).Outcome measureThe independent medical evaluators assessment (yes/no) of the sufficiency of the regular GPs follow-up of their sick-listed patients.ResultsEstimates from generalised linear models demonstrate a robust association between men with mental sick leave diagnoses and insufficient follow-up by their regular GP first 6 months of sick leave (adjusted relative risk (RR)=1.8, 95% CI=1.15-1.68). Compared with the reference group, women with musculoskeletal sick leave diagnoses, this was the only significant finding. Men with musculoskeletal diagnoses (adjusted RR=1.4, 95% CI=0.92-2.09); men with other diagnoses (adjusted RR=1.0, 95% CI=0.58-1.73); women with mental diagnoses (adjusted RR=1.2, 95% CI=0.75-1.77) and women with other diagnoses (adjusted RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.58-1.73).ConclusionsAssessment by an independent medical evaluator showed that men with mental sick leave diagnoses may be at risk of insufficient follow-up by their GP. Efforts should be made to clarify unmet needs to initiate relevant actions in healthcare and work life. Avoiding marginalisation in work life is of the utmost importance.Trial registration numberNCT02524392; Post-results.

Project description:IntroductionFacilitators to implement shared cancer follow-up care into clinical practice include mechanisms to allow the oncologist to continue overseeing the care of their patient, two-way information sharing and clear follow-up protocols for general practitioners (GPs). This paper aimed to evaluate patients, GPs and radiation oncologists (ROs) acceptance of a shared care intervention.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post intervention with patients that were 3 years post radiotherapy treatment for breast, colorectal or prostate cancer, their RO, and their GP. Inductive and deductive thematical analysis was employed.ResultsThirty-two participants were interviewed (19 patients, 9 GPs, and 4 ROs). Pre intervention, there was support for GPs to play a greater role in cancer follow-up care, however, patients were concerned about the GPs cancer-specific skills. Patients, GPs and ROs were concerned about increasing the GPs workload. Post intervention, participants were satisfied that the GPs had specific skills and that the impact on GP workload was comparable to writing a referral. However, GPs expressed concern about remuneration. GPs and ROs felt the model provided patient choice and were suitable for low-risk, stable patients around 2-3 years post treatment. Patients emphasised that they trusted their RO to advise them on the most appropriate follow-up model suited to their individual situation. The overall acceptance of shared care depended on successful health technology to connect the GP and RO. There were no differences in patient acceptance between rural, regional, and cancer types. ROs presented differences in acceptance for the different cancer types, with breast cancer strongly supported.ConclusionPatients, GPs and ROs felt this shared cancer follow-up model of care was acceptable, but only if the RO remained directly involved and the health technology worked. There is a need to review funding and advocate for health technology advances to support integration.Patient or public contributionPatients treated with curative radiotherapy for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer, their RO and their GPs were actively involved in this study by giving their consent to be interviewed.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of one year dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of one year dementia follow-up care by memory clinics or general practitioners: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets