Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Occupation-Based Occupational Therapy Using the Aid for Decision Making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) for Older Residents: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Care-home residents are mostly inactive, have little interaction with staff, and are dependent on staff to engage in daily occupations. We recently developed an iPad application called the Aid for Decision-making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) to promote shared decision-making in activities and occupation-based goal setting by choosing from illustrations describing daily activities. This study aimed to evaluate if interventions based on occupation-based goal setting using the ADOC could focus on meaningful activities to improve quality of life and independent activities of daily living, with greater cost-effectiveness than an impairment-based approach as well as to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a large cluster, randomized controlled trial.

Method

In this single (assessor)-blind pilot cluster randomized controlled trial, the intervention group (ADOC group) received occupational therapy based on occupation-based goal setting using the ADOC, and the interventions were focused on meaningful occupations. The control group underwent an impairment-based approach focused on restoring capacities, without goal setting tools. In both groups, the 20-minute individualized intervention sessions were conducted twice a week for 4 months.

Main outcome measures

Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, SF-6D utility score, quality adjusted life years (QALY), Barthel Index, and total care cost.

Results

We randomized and analyzed 12 facilities (44 participants, 18.5% drop-out rate), with 6 facilities each allocated to the ADOC (n = 23) and control (n = 21) groups. After the 4-month intervention, the ADOC group had a significantly greater change in the BI score, with improved scores (P = 0.027, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.87, intracluster correlation coefficient = 0.14). No other outcome was significantly different. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, calculated using the change in BI score, was $63.1.

Conclusion

The results suggest that occupational therapy using the ADOC for older residents might be effective and cost-effective. We also found that conducting an RCT in the occupational therapy setting is feasible.

Trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000012994.

SUBMITTER: Nagayama H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4773241 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Occupation-Based Occupational Therapy Using the Aid for Decision Making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) for Older Residents: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Nagayama Hirofumi H Tomori Kounosuke K Ohno Kanta K Takahashi Kayoko K Ogahara Kakuya K Sawada Tatsunori T Uezu Sei S Nagatani Ryutaro R Yamauchi Keita K

PloS one 20160301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Care-home residents are mostly inactive, have little interaction with staff, and are dependent on staff to engage in daily occupations. We recently developed an iPad application called the Aid for Decision-making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) to promote shared decision-making in activities and occupation-based goal setting by choosing from illustrations describing daily activities. This study aimed to evaluate if interventions based on occupation-based goal setting using the ADO ...[more]

PMID: 26930191

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAustralian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations.MethodsWe analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers.ResultsNine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making.ConclusionsThis paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

Project description:IntroductionComparing multiple, diverse outcomes with cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is important, yet challenging in areas like palliative care where domains are unamenable to integration with survival. Generic multi-attribute utility values exclude important domains and non-health outcomes, while partial analyses-where outcomes are considered separately, with their joint relationship under uncertainty ignored-lead to incorrect inference regarding preferred strategies.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to consider whether such decision making can be better informed with alternative presentation and summary measures, extending methods previously shown to have advantages in multiple strategy comparison.MethodsMultiple outcomes CEA of a home-based palliative care model (PEACH) relative to usual care is undertaken in cost disutility (CDU) space and compared with analysis on the cost-effectiveness plane. Summary measures developed for comparing strategies across potential threshold values for multiple outcomes include: expected net loss (ENL) planes quantifying differences in expected net benefit; the ENL contour identifying preferred strategies minimising ENL and their expected value of perfect information; and cost-effectiveness acceptability planes showing probability of strategies minimising ENL.ResultsConventional analysis suggests PEACH is cost-effective when the threshold value per additional day at home (𝕜1) exceeds $1,068 or dominated by usual care when only the proportion of home deaths is considered. In contrast, neither alternative dominate in CDU space where cost and outcomes are jointly considered, with the optimal strategy depending on threshold values. For example, PEACH minimises ENL when 𝕜1=$2,000 and 𝕜2=$2,000 (threshold value for dying at home), with a 51.6% chance of PEACH being cost-effective.ConclusionComparison in CDU space and associated summary measures have distinct advantages to multiple domain comparisons, aiding transparent and robust joint comparison of costs and multiple effects under uncertainty across potential threshold values for effect, better informing net benefit assessment and related reimbursement and research decisions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (PDA) to improve decision quality and glycaemic control in people with diabetes making treatment choices using a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignA cluster RCT.Setting49 general practices in UK randomised into intervention (n=25) and control (n=24).ParticipantsGeneral practices Inclusion criteria: >4 medical partners; list size >7000; and a diabetes register with >1% of practice population. 191 practices assessed for eligibility, and 49 practices randomised and completed the study. Patients People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) taking at least two oral glucose-lowering drugs with maximum tolerated dose with a glycosolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) greater than 7.4% (IFCC HbA1c >57 mmol/mol) or advised in the preceeding 6 months to add or consider changing to insulin therapy.Exclusion criteriacurrently using insulin therapy; difficulty reading or understanding English; difficulty in understanding the purpose of the study; visual or cognitive impairment or mentally ill. A total of 182 assessed for eligibility, 175 randomised to 95 intervention and 80 controls, and 167 completion and anlaysis.InterventionBrief training of clinicians and use of PDA with patients in single consultation.Primary outcomesDecision quality (Decisional Conflict Scores, knowledge, realistic expectations and autonomy) and glycaemic control (glycosolated haemoglobin, HbA1c).Secondary outcomesKnowledge and realistic expectations of the risks and benefits of insulin therapy and diabetic complications.ResultsIntervention group: lower total Decisional Conflict Scores (17.4 vs 25.2, p<0.001); better knowledge (51.6% vs 28.8%, p<0.001); realistic expectations (risk of 'hypo', 'weight gain', 'complications'; 81.0% vs 5.2%, 70.5% vs 5.3%, 26.3% vs 5.0% respectively, p<0.001); and were more autonomous in decision-making (64.1% vs 42.9%, p=0.012). No significant difference in the glycaemic control between the two groups.ConclusionsUse of the PANDAs decision aid reduces decisional conflict, improves knowledge, promotes realistic expectations and autonomy in people with diabetes making treatment choices in general practice. ISRCTN TRIALS REGISTER NUMBER: 14842077.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Occupation-Based Occupational Therapy Using the Aid for Decision Making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) for Older Residents: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background

Method

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Occupation-Based Occupational Therapy Using the Aid for Decision Making in Occupation Choice (ADOC) for Older Residents: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets