Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Behaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting.

Methods

RCT data over 16 months from English care-home residents with dementia (intervention n?=?418; control n?=?308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care-home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty.

Results

Costs were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (incremental?=?£1479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental?=?0.024) in favour of DCM. The base-case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (ConclusionDCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high-cost individuals and capturing utility in this group. ISRCTN reference 82288852.

SUBMITTER: Meads DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7085468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Meads David M DM Martin Adam A Griffiths Alys A Kelley Rachael R Creese Byron B Robinson Louise L McDermid Joanne J Walwyn Rebecca R Ballard Clive C Surr Claire A CA

Applied health economics and health policy 20200401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Behaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting.<h4>Met ...[more]

PMID: 31701483

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the costs and cost effectiveness of phototherapy with ultraviolet B light provided at home compared with outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis.DesignCost utility, cost effectiveness, and cost minimisation analyses performed alongside a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (the PLUTO study) at the end of phototherapy (mean 17.6 weeks) and at one year after the end of phototherapy (mean 68.4 weeks).SettingSecondary care, provided by a dermatologist in the Netherlands.Participants196 adults with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy were recruited from the dermatology departments of 14 hospitals and were followed until the end of phototherapy. From the end of phototherapy onwards, follow-up was continued for an unselected, consecutive group of 105 patients for one year after end of phototherapy.InterventionsUltraviolet B phototherapy provided at home (intervention) and conventional outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy (control) in a setting reflecting routine practice in the Netherlands. Both treatments used narrowband ultraviolet B lamps (TL-01).Main outcome measuresTotal costs to society, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as calculated using utilities measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire, and the number of days with a relevant treatment effect (>/=50% improvement of the baseline self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI)).ResultsHome phototherapy is at least as effective and safe as outpatient phototherapy, therefore allowing cost minimisation analyses (simply comparing costs). The average total costs by the end of phototherapy were euro800 for home treatment and euro752 for outpatient treatment, showing an incremental cost per patient of euro48 (95% CI euro-77 to euro174). The average total costs by one year after the end of phototherapy were euro1272 and euro1148 respectively (difference euro124, 95% CI euro-155 to euro403). Cost utility analyses revealed that patients experienced equal health benefits-that is, a gain of 0.296 versus 0.291 QALY (home v outpatient) by the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0052, -0.0244 to 0.0348) and 1.153 versus 1.126 QALY by one year after the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0267, -0.024 to 0.078). Incremental costs per QALY gained were euro9276 and euro4646 respectively, both amounts well below the normally accepted standard of euro20 000 per QALY. Cost effectiveness analyses indicated that the mean number of days with a relevant treatment effect was 42.4 versus 55.3 by the end of phototherapy (difference -12.9, -23.4 to -2.4). By one year after the end of phototherapy the number of days with a relevant treatment effect were 216.5 and 210.4 respectively (6.1, -41.1 to 53.2), yielding an incremental cost of euro20 per additional day with a relevant treatment effect.ConclusionsHome ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis is not more expensive than phototherapy in an outpatient setting and proved to be cost effective. As both treatments are at least equally effective and patients express a preference for home treatment, the authors conclude that home phototherapy should be the primary treatment option for patients who are eligible for phototherapy with ultraviolet B light.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN83025173 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00150930.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prescribing, monitoring and administration of medicines in care homes could be improved. A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) is ongoing to evaluate the effectiveness of an independent prescribing pharmacist assuming responsibility for medicines management in care homes compared to usual care. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RCT, in line with Medical Research Council (MRC) process evaluation guidance, to inform interpretation of main trial findings and if the service is found to be effective and efficient, to inform subsequent implementation. OBJECTIVES:1. To describe the intervention as delivered in terms of quality, quantity, adaptations and variations across triads and time. 2. To explore the effects of individual intervention components on the primary outcomes. 3. To investigate the mechanisms of impact. 4. To describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components [including pharmacist independent prescriber (PIP) training and care home staff training] from participant [general practitioner (GP), care home, PIP and resident/relative] perspectives. 5. To describe the characteristics of GP, care home, PIP and resident participants to assess reach. 6. To estimate the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised among the intervention healthcare professionals and related practice staff. METHODS:A mix of quantitative (surveys, record reviews) and qualitative (interviews) approaches will be used to collect data on the extent of the delivery of detailed tasks required to implement the new service, to collect data to confirm the mechanism of impact as hypothesised in the logic model, to collect explanatory process and final outcome data, and data on contextual factors which could have facilitated or hindered effective and efficient delivery of the service. DISCUSSION:Recruitment is ongoing and the trial should complete in early 2020. The systematic and comprehensive approach that is being adopted will ensure data is captured on all aspects of the study, and allow a full understanding of the implementation of the service and the RCT findings. With so many interrelated factors involved it is important that a process evaluation is undertaken to enable us to identify which elements of the service were deemed to be effective, explain any differences seen, and identify enablers, barriers and future adaptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN17847169. Date registered: 15 December 2017.

Project description:BackgroundDementia is a progressive disease that decreases quality of life of persons with dementia and is associated with high societal costs. The burden of caring for persons with dementia also decreases the quality of life of family caregivers. The objective of this study was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of Namaste Care Family program in comparison with usual care in nursing home residents with advanced dementia.MethodsNursing homes were randomized to either Namaste Care Family program or usual care. Outcome measures of the cluster-randomized trial in 231 residents included Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) and the Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) for family caregivers over 12 months of follow-up. Health states were measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire which were translated into utilities. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the amount of time a participant spent in a specific health state with the utility score associated with that health state. Healthcare utilization costs were estimated using standard unit costs, while intervention costs were estimated using a bottom-up approach. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapped multilevel models were used after multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.ResultsThe Namaste Care Family program was more effective than usual care in terms of QUALID (- 0.062, 95%CI: - 0.40 to 0.28), QALY (0.0017, 95%CI: - 0.059 to 0.063) and GAIN (0.075, 95%CI: - 0.20 to 0.35). Total societal costs were lower for the Namaste Care Family program as compared to usual care (- 552 €, 95%CI: - 2920 to 1903). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a ceiling ratio of 0 €/unit of effect extra was 0.70 for the QUALID, QALY and GAIN.ConclusionsThe Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp , identifier: NL5570, date of registration: 2016/03/23).

Project description:BackgroundEvery year, 2·9 million newborn babies die worldwide. A meta-analysis of four cluster-randomised controlled trials estimated that home visits by trained community members in programme settings in Ghana and south Asia reduced neonatal mortality by 12% (95% CI 5-18). We aimed to estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of newborn home visits in a programme setting.MethodsWe prospectively collected detailed cost data alongside the Newhints trial, which tested the effect of a home-visits intervention in seven districts in rural Ghana and showed a reduction of 8% (95% CI -12 to 25%) in neonatal mortality. The intervention consisted of a package of home visits to pregnant women and their babies in the first week of life by community-based surveillance volunteers. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with Monte Carlo simulation and one-way sensitivity analyses and characterised uncertainty with cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. We then modelled the potential cost-effectiveness for baseline neonatal mortality rates of 20-60 deaths per 1000 livebirths with use of a meta-analysis of effectiveness estimates.FindingsIn the 49 zones randomly allocated to receive the Newhints intervention, a mean of 407 (SD 18) community-based surveillance volunteers undertook home visits for 7848 pregnant women who gave birth to 7786 live babies in 2009. Annual economic cost of implementation was US$203 998, or $0·53 per person. In the base-case analysis, the Newhints intervention cost a mean of $10 343 (95% CI 2963 to -7674) per newborn life saved, or $352 (95% CI 104 to -268) per discounted life-year saved, and had a 72% chance of being highly cost effective with respect to Ghana's 2009 gross domestic product per person. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness were the discount rate, protective effectiveness, baseline neonatal mortality rate, and implementation costs. In the scenarios modelled with the meta-analysis results, the ICER increased from $127 per life-year saved at a neonatal mortality rate of 60 deaths per 1000 livebirths, to $379 per life-year saved at a rate of 20 deaths per 1000 livebirths. The strategy had at least a 99% probability of being highly cost effective for lower-middle-income countries in all neonatal mortality rate scenarios modelled, and at least a 95% probability of being highly cost effective for low-income countries at neonatal mortality rates of 30 or more deaths per 1000 livebirths.InterpretationOur findings show that the seemingly modest mortality reductions achieved by a newborn home-visit strategy might in fact be cost effective. In Ghana, such strategies are also likely to be affordable. Our findings support recommendations from WHO and UNICEF that low-income and middle-income countries implement newborn home visits.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Department for International Development, WHO.

Project description:BackgroundDementia-care mapping (DCM) is a cyclic intervention aiming at reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia in nursing homes. Alongside an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial in which we studied the effectiveness of DCM on residents and staff outcomes, we investigated differences in costs of care between DCM and usual care in nursing homes.MethodsDementia special care units were randomly assigned to DCM or usual care. Nurses from the intervention care homes received DCM training, a DCM organizational briefing day and conducted the 4-months DCM-intervention twice during the study. A single DCM cycle consists of observation, feedback to the staff, and action plans for the residents. We measured costs related to health care consumption, falls and psychotropic drug use at the resident level and absenteeism at the staff level. Data were extracted from resident files and the nursing home records. Prizes were determined using the Dutch manual of health care cost and the cost prices delivered by a pharmacy and a nursing home. Total costs were evaluated by means of linear mixed-effect models for longitudinal data, with the unit as a random effect to correct for dependencies within units.Results34 units from 11 nursing homes, including 318 residents and 376 nursing staff members participated in the cost analyses. Analyses showed no difference in total costs. However certain changes within costs could be noticed. The intervention group showed lower costs associated with outpatient hospital appointments over time (p = 0.05) than the control group. In both groups, the number of falls, costs associated with the elderly-care physician and nurse practitioner increased equally during the study (p<0.02).ConclusionsDCM is a cost-neutral intervention. It effectively reduces outpatient hospital appointments compared to usual care. Other considerations than costs, such as nursing homes' preferences, may determine whether they adopt the DCM method.Trial registrationDutch Trials Registry NTR2314.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets