Dataset Information

A cost utility analysis alongside a cluster-randomised trial evaluating a minor ailment service compared to usual care in community pharmacy

ABSTRACT:

Background

Minor 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).

Methods

The 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.

Results

A 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.

Conclusions

Expanding 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 registration

ISRCTN, ISRCTN17235323. Registered 07/05/2021 - Retrospectively registered

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07188-4.

SUBMITTER: Amador-Fernandez N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8605551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignCost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity settings in Greater London, England.Participants174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years.InterventionsIntervention 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 measuresMean 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).ResultsMean 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.ConclusionsWe 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 numberISRCTN9984011.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The management of minor conditions represents a significant burden for urgent and emergency care services and reduces the capacity to provide specialist care for higher acuity healthcare need. A pilot Digital Minor Illness Service (DMIRS) was commenced in the North East of England in December 2017 to feasibility test the NHS 111 referral to community pharmacy for patients presenting with minor conditions. OBJECTIVES:A formative evaluation of the service activity data and qualitative investigation of stakeholders involved in the service design, management, delivery and use, aims to present and investigate the service outcomes. METHOD:Routine service activity data was evaluated during Jan-Dec 2018 to investigate the demographics of patients included in the service; the presenting conditions; and how those referrals were managed by community pharmacies. Semi-structured interviews with NHS 111 call handlers, project team members, community pharmacists and patients were undertaken to investigate the design, management, implementation and delivery of the service. RESULTS:13,246 NHS 111 patient calls were referred to community pharmacy during the evaluative period. The most common presenting conditions were acute pain (n = 1144, 8.6%) and cough (n = 887, 6.7%). A large volume of complaints (47.1%, 6233) were resolved in community pharmacy. Stakeholders explained the structured approach to service design, organisation and implementation facilitated successful delivery and management. Patients reported positive experiences with accessing care via DMIRS. CONCLUSIONS:DMIRS demonstrated that patients could be referred to community pharmacy for the management of minor conditions, shifting a burden away from urgent and emergency care. The service data provides key information for further optimisation of service design, and stakeholder training and awareness. The service was acceptable and valued by patients. Evidence from the DMIRS pilot has been utilised to inform recent national healthcare policy and practice around the management of minor conditions within the urgent and emergency care setting.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of early psychosocial intervention for patients with Alzheimer's disease and their primary caregivers.DesignCost utility evaluation alongside a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with 3 years of follow-up.SettingPrimary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts.Participants330 community-dwelling patients and their primary caregivers.InterventionPsychosocial counselling and support lasting 8-12 months after diagnosis and follow-up at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months in the intervention group or follow-up only in the control group.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the cost of additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective, including the costs of healthcare, social care, informal care and production loss. QALYs were estimated separately for the patient and the caregiver before aggregation for the main analysis.ResultsNone of the observed cost and QALY measures were significantly different between the intervention and control groups, although a tendency was noted for psychosocial care leading to cost increases with informal care that was not outweighed by the tendency for cost savings with formal care. The probability of psychosocial intervention being cost-effective did not exceed 36% for any threshold value. The alternative scenario analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness increased over the range of threshold values used if the cost perspective was restricted to formal healthcare.ConclusionsA multifaceted, psychosocial intervention programme was found unlikely to be cost-effective from a societal perspective. The recommendation for practice in settings that are similar to the Danish setting is to provide follow-up with referral to available local support programmes when needed, and to restrict large multifaceted intervention programmes to patients and caregivers with special needs until further evidence for cost-effectiveness emerges.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the Clinical Trial Database as ISRCTN74848736.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN:A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING:Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (?18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS:In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES:Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS:From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NTR2108; Results.