Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.

Design

Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Community settings in Greater London, England.

Participants

174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years.

Interventions

Intervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6?months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice.

Main outcome measures

Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).

Results

Mean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI -0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120?630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20?000 or £30?000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

We did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN9984011.

SUBMITTER: Panca M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6124607 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

Panca Monica M Christie Deborah D Cole Tim J TJ Costa Silvia S Gregson John J Holt Rebecca R Hudson Lee D LD Kessel Anthony S AS Kinra Sanjay S Mathiot Anne A Nazareth Irwin I Wataranan Jay J Wong Ian Chi Kei ICK Viner Russell M RM Morris Stephen S

BMJ open 20180215 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.<h4>Design</h4>Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Community settings in Greater London, England.<h4>Participants</h4>174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years.<h4>Interventions</h4>Intervention participants received 12 o ...[more]

PMID: 29449292

Similar Datasets

Project description:Learning and coping education strategies (LC) was implemented to enhance patient attendance in the cardiac rehabilitation programme. This study assessed the cost-utility of LC compared to standard education (standard) as part of a rehabilitation programme for patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure.The study was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial with 825 patients who were allocated to LC or standard rehabilitation and followed for 5 months. The LC approach was identical to the standard approach in terms of physical training and education, but with the addition of individual interviews and weekly team evaluations by professionals. A societal cost perspective including the cost of intervention, health care, informal time and productivity loss was applied. Cost was based on a micro-costing approach for the intervention and national administrative registries for other cost categories. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements at baseline, after intervention and follow-up using British preference weights. Multiple imputation was used to handle non-response on the SF-6D. Conventional cost effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate the net benefit of the LC and to illustrate cost effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped standard errors.An additional cost of DKK 6,043 (95% CI -5,697; 17,783) and a QALY gain of 0.005 (95% CI -0.001; 0.012) was estimated for LC. However, better utility scores in both arms were due to higher utility while receiving the intervention than better health after the intervention. The probability that LC would be cost-effective did not exceed 29% for any threshold values of willingness to pay per QALY. The alternative scenario analysis was restricted to a health care perspective and showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 62% over the threshold values.The LC was unlikely to be cost-effective within 5 months of follow-up from a societal perspective, but longer-term follow-up should be evaluated before a definite conclusion is drawn.Future research should assess the LC strategies' long-term efficacy and cost-utility.NCT01668394.

Project description:BackgroundMinor ailments are "self-limiting conditions which may be diagnosed and managed without a medical intervention". A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) was designed to evaluate the clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of a Minor Ailment Service (MAS) in community pharmacy (CP) compared with usual care (UC).MethodsThe cRCT was conducted for 6 months from December 2017. The pharmacist-patient intervention consisted of a standardised face-to-face consultation on a web-based program using co-developed protocols, pharmacists' training, practice change facilitators and patients' educational material. Patients requesting a non-prescription medication (direct product request) or presenting minor ailments received MAS or UC and were followed-up by telephone 10-days after the consultation. The primary economic outcomes were incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of the service and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs included health system, CPs and patient direct costs: health professionals' consultation time, medication costs, pharmacists' training costs, investment of the pharmacy and consultation costs within the 10 days following the initial consultation. The HRQoL was obtained using the EuroQoL 5D-5L at the time of the consultation and at 10-days follow up. A sensitivity analysis was carried out using bootstrapping. There were two sub-group analyses undertaken, for symptom presentation and direct product requests, to evaluate possible differences.ResultsA total of 808 patients (323 MAS and 485 UC) were recruited in 27 CPs with 42 pharmacists (20 MAS and 22 UC). 64.7% (n = 523) of patients responded to follow-up after their consultation in CP. MAS patients gained an additional 0.0003 QALYs (p = 0.053). When considering only MAS patients presenting with symptoms, the ICUR was 24,733€/QALY with a 47.4% probability of cost-effectiveness (willingness to pay of 25,000€/QALY). Although when considering patients presenting for a direct product request, MAS was the dominant strategy with a 93.69% probability of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsExpanding community pharmacists' scope through MAS may benefit health systems. To be fully cost effective, MAS should not only include consultations arising from symptom presentation but also include an oversight of self-selected products by patients. MAS increase patient safety through the appropriate use of non-prescription medication and through the direct referral of patients to GP.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN17235323 . Registered 07/05/2021 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:Background: There is little experience in the economic evaluation of pharmacy/primary care collaborative health interventions using interprofessional technology-driven communication under real-world conditions. This study aimed to conduct cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of a collaborative care intervention in hypertension and hyperlipidemia management between pharmacies and primary care versus usual (fragmented) care alongside a trial. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month pragmatic quasi-experimental controlled trial. Data sources included primary care clinical software; pharmacy dispensing software; patient telephone surveys; and published literature. The target population was adult patients on hypertension and/or lipid-lowering medication. The perspective was societal. We collected patient-level data on resource use to estimate trial costs. Effect outcomes included blood pressure (BP) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were estimated. Results: The intervention was not shown to have reasonable levels of cost-effectiveness or cost-utility when compared to usual care as denoted by the levels of uncertainty expressed in wide confidence intervals. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective is 28% at the threshold of €20,000 per QALY gained and 57% at the threshold of €500 per mmHg systolic BP decrease. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of the trial which affected effectiveness and economic outcomes, our results are not generalizable for community pharmacy and primary care in Portugal. This research offers, however, valuable lessons on methods and strategies that can be used in future economic evaluations of collaborative public health interventions with the potential for reimbursement. Clinical trial registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13410498, identifier ISRCTN13410498.

Project description:BackgroundInternet-delivered psychosocial interventions can overcome barriers to face-to-face psychosocial care, but limited evidence supports their cost-effectiveness for people with bipolar disorders (BDs).ObjectiveThis study aimed to conduct within-trial cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of an internet-based intervention for people with BD, MoodSwings 2.0, from an Australian health sector perspective.MethodsMoodSwings 2.0 included an economic evaluation alongside an international, parallel, and individually stratified randomized controlled trial comparing an internet-based discussion forum (control; group 1), a discussion forum plus internet-based psychoeducation (group 2), and a discussion forum plus psychoeducation and cognitive behavioral tools (group 3). The trial enrolled adults (aged 21 to 65 years) with a diagnosis of BD assessed by telephone using a structured clinical interview. Health sector costs included intervention delivery and additional health care resources used by participants over the 12-month trial follow-up. Outcomes included depression symptoms measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; the trial primary outcome) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated using the short-form 6-dimension instrument derived from the 12-item version of the short-form health survey. Average incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per MADRS score) and cost-utility (cost per QALY) ratios were calculated using estimated mean differences between intervention and control groups from linear mixed effects models in the base case.ResultsIn total, 304 participants were randomized. Average health sector cost was lowest for group 2 (Aus $9431, SD Aus $8540; Aus $1=US $0.7058) compared with the control group (Aus $15,175, SD Aus $17,206) and group 3 (Aus $15,518, SD Aus $30,523), but none was statistically significantly different. The average QALYs were not significantly different among the groups (group 1: 0.627, SD 0.062; group 2: 0.618, SD 0.094; and group 3: 0.622, SD 0.087). The MADRS scores were previously shown to differ significantly between group 2 and the control group at all follow-up time points (P<.05). Group 2 was dominant (lower costs and greater effects) compared with the control group for average incremental cost per point decrease in MADRS score over 12 months (95% CI dominated to Aus $331). Average cost per point change in MADRS score for group 3 versus the control group was dominant (95% CI dominant to Aus $22,585). Group 2 was dominant (95% CI Aus $43,000 to dominant) over the control group based on lower average health sector cost and average QALY benefit of 0.012 (95% CI -0.009 to 0.033). Group 3, compared with the control group, had an average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dominant (95% CI dominated to Aus $19,978).ConclusionsWeb-based psychoeducation through MoodSwings 2.0 has the potential to be a cost-effective intervention for people with BD. Additional research is needed to understand the lack of effectiveness for the addition of cognitive behavioral tools with the group 3 intervention.

Project description:To assess cost-effectiveness and cost utility of telerehabilitation (TR) versus standard rehabilitation (SR) after total knee replacement (TKR).Markov decision modelling of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis based on patient-level and secondary data sources employing Italian National Health Service (NHS; Ita-NHS) and Society perspectives.Primary care units (PCUs) in Italy.Patients discharged after TKR.Mixed SR-TR service (10 face-to-face sessions and 10 telesessions) versus SR (20 face-to-face sessions)The incremental cost per additional knee flexion range of motion (ROM) and per QALY gained by SR-TR compared with SR. Second, we considered the probability of being cost-effective and the probability of being more effective and less expensive.TR appears to be the cost-effective in the base case and in all of the considered scenarios, but is no longer more effective and less expensive if transportation costs are excluded. Comparing SR-TR with SR, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) adopting the Ita-NHS perspective for the base case was -€117/ROM gained. The cost-effectiveness probability for SR-TR was 0.98 (ceiling ratio: €50/ROM), while the joint probability of being more effective and less expensive was 0.87. Assuming that TR would increase health-related quality of life (HRQOL) utilities by 2.5%, the ICER adopting Ita-NHS perspective is -€960/QALY (cost-effectiveness probability: 1; ceiling ratio: €30 000/QALY). All the performed sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions, but if transportation costs were excluded, the probability for SR-TR of being more clinically effective and less expensive reduced to 0.56.The analysis suggested SR-TR to be cost-effective, even less expensive and more effective if the PCUs provide ambulance transportations. However, the uncertainty related to TR costs, HRQOL and long-term clinical outcomes raises important topics for future research, which should be addressed to confirm our estimates.ISRCTN45837371.

Project description:BackgroundOverweight and obesity among young, adult women are increasing problems in Sweden as in many other countries. The postpartum period may be a good opportunity to improve eating habits and lose weight in a sustainable manner. The aim was to make a cost-utility analysis of a dietary behavior modification treatment alongside usual care, compared to usual care alone, among lactating overweight and obese women.MethodsThis study was a cost-utility analysis based on a randomized controlled and longitudinal clinical diet intervention. Between 2007-2010, 68 women living in Sweden were, after baseline measurement at 8-12 weeks postpartum, randomly assigned to a 12-week dietary behavior modification treatment or control group. Inclusion criteria were: self-reported pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) 25-35 kg/m2, non-smoker, singleton term delivery, birth weight > 2500 g, intention to breastfeed for 6 mo and no diseases (mother and child). The women in the intervention group received 1.5 hour of individual counseling at study start and 1 hour at follow-up home visits after 6 weeks of intervention, with support through cell phone text messages every two wk. Dietary intervention aimed to reduce dietary intake by 500 kcal/day. The control group received usual care. Weight results have previously been reported. Here we report on analyses carried out during 2012-2013 of cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY), based on the changes in quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3 L and SF-6D. Likelihood of cost-effectiveness was calculated using Net Monetary Benefit method.ResultsBased on conservative assumptions of no remaining effect after 1 year follow-up, the diet intervention was cost-effective. Costs per gained QALY were 8 643 - 9 758 USD. The likelihood for cost-effectiveness, considering a willingness to pay 50 000 USD for a QALY, was 87-93%.ConclusionsThe diet intervention is cost-effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343238 Registered April 27, 2011.The regional ethics committee in Gothenburg, Sweden, approved the study on November 15, 2006.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets