Search

Objectives: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models., Methods: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R 2 ), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations., Results: The Non-p performed the best (R 2  = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R 2  = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R 2  = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR)., Conclusions: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: The rehabilitation of trauma patients in primary care is challenging, and there are no guidelines for optimal treatment. Also, the organization of care is not well-structured. The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) has been developed in the Netherlands, aiming to improve patient outcomes by optimizing the organization and the quality of the rehabilitation process in primary care. A recent feasibility study showed that implementation of the TTCM at a Dutch Level 1 trauma center was feasible, patient outcomes were improved, and costs were reduced. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM compared to the usual care in a multicenter trial., Methods: A multicenter trial with a controlled before-and-after design will be performed at 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. First, participating hospitals will include 322 patients in the control group, receiving usual care as provided in these specific hospitals. Subsequently, the TTCM will be implemented in all participating hospitals, and hospitals will include an additional 322 patients in the intervention group. The TTCM consists of a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic (trauma surgeon and hospital-based physical therapist), an educated and trained network of primary care trauma physical therapists, and structural communication between them. Co-primary outcomes will investigate generic and disease-specific, health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes will include pain, patient satisfaction, perceived recovery, and patient-reported physical functioning. For the economic evaluation, societal and healthcare costs will be measured. Measurements will take place at baseline and after 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 9 months. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Missing data will be handled using longitudinal data analyses in the effect analyses and by multivariate imputation in the economic evaluation., Conclusion: This trial with a controlled before-and-after design will give insight into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM in a multicenter trial., (© 2021 The Authors. Physiotherapy Research International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study compares the five-level EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) crosswalks and the 5L value sets for England, the Netherlands, and Spain and explores the implication of using one or the other for the results of cost-utility analyses. Data from two randomized controlled trials in depression and diabetes were used. Utility value distributions were compared, and mean differences in utility values between the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk and the 5L value set were described by country. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the area-under-the-curve method. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and uncertainty around ICERs was estimated using bootstrapping and graphically shown in cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. For all countries investigated, utility value distributions differed between the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk and 5L value set. In both case studies, mean utility values were lower for the EQ-5D-5L crosswalk compared with the 5L value set in England and Spain, but higher in the Netherlands. However, these differences in utility values did not translate into relevant differences across utility estimation methods in incremental QALYs and the interventions' probability of cost-effectiveness. Thus, our results suggest that EQ-5D-5L crosswalks and 5L value sets can be used interchangeably in patients affected by mild or moderate conditions. Further research is needed to establish whether these findings are generalizable to economic evaluations among severely ill patients., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: Depression is associated with considerable impairments in health-related quality-of-life. However, the relationship between different health states related to depression severity and utility scores is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether utility scores are different for various health states related to depression severity., Methods: We gathered individual participant data from ten randomized controlled trials evaluating depression treatments. The UK EQ-5D and SF-6D tariffs were used to generate utility scores. We defined five health states that were proposed from American Psychiatric Association and National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines: remission, minor depression, mild depression, moderate depression, and severe depression. We performed multilevel linear regression analysis., Results: We included 1629 participants in the analyses. The average EQ-5D utility scores for the five health states were 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.73) for remission, 0.62 (95% CI 0.58-0.65) for minor depression, 0.57 (95% CI 0.54-0.61) for mild depression, 0.52 (95%CI 0.49-0.56) for moderate depression, and 0.39 (95% CI 0.35-0.43) for severe depression. In comparison with the EQ-5D, the utility scores based on the SF-6D were similar for remission (EQ-5D = 0.70 vs. SF-6D = 0.69), but higher for severe depression (EQ-5D = 0.39 vs. SF-6D = 0.55)., Conclusions: We observed statistically significant differences in utility scores between depression health states. Individuals with less severe depressive symptoms had on average statistically significant higher utility scores than individuals suffering from more severe depressive symptomatology. In the present study, EQ-5D had a larger range of values as compared to SF-6D.

Background: Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are increasingly being used in patients sciatica. The STAR (steroids against radiculopathy)-trial aimed to evaluate the (cost-) effectiveness of TESI in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks). This article contains the economic evaluation of the STAR-trial. Methods: Participants were randomized to one of three study arms: Usual Care (UC), that is oral pain medication with or without physiotherapy, n = 45); intervention group 1: UC and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TESI) 1 ml of 0.5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 40 mg/ml Methylprednisolone and intervention group 2: UC and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with 1 ml of 0,5% Levobupivacaine and 1 ml of 0.9% NaCl (n = 50). The primary effect measure was health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes were pain, functioning, and recovery. Costs were measured from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs were included, irrespective of who paid or benefited. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation, and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. Results: None of the between-group differences in effects were statistically significant for any of the outcomes (QALY, back pain, leg pain, functioning, and global perceived effect) at the 26-weeks follow-up. The adjusted mean difference in total societal costs was €1718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: − 3020 to 6052) for comparison 1 (intervention group 1 versus usual care), €1640 (95%CI: − 3354 to 6106) for comparison 2 (intervention group 1 versus intervention group 2), and €770 (95%CI: − 3758 to 5702) for comparison 3 (intervention group 2 versus usual care). Except for the intervention costs, none of the aggregate and disaggregate cost differences were statistically significant. The maximum probability of all interventions being cost-effective compared to the control was low (< 0.7) for all effect measures. Conclusion: These results suggest that adding TESI (or TEI) to usual care is not cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with acute sciatica (< 8 weeks) from a societal perspective in a Dutch healthcare setting. Trial registration: Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To manage chronic pain, multidisciplinary interventions have been increasingly deployed, mostly in secondary or tertiary care settings. Evidence on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary intervention within primary care is scarce. This study examined the effectiveness of a primary care multidisciplinary treatment for chronic pain compared with treatment as usual (TAU). The intervention consisted of pain neuroscience education and treatment by a GP, psychologist, and physiotherapist. Both groups filled out patient-reported outcome measures at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The results indicated there were no statistically significant differences for the primary outcomes of pain intensity, number of pain sites, and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). There was a statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome perceived health change in favor of the intervention group. None of the other differences were statistically significant. A post-hoc analysis showed that there were statistically significant effects on patients' illness perceptions in favor of the intervention group. Based on the results, the findings do not support effectiveness of a low intensity outpatient multidisciplinary primary care treatment to treat chronic pain compared with TAU. However, as a result of several study limitations, it is considered unwarranted to conclude that multidisciplinary treatment in primary care is not valuable at all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pressure ulcers (PUs) on the buttocks are among the most common secondary complications in individuals with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). PUs can result from sitting for extended periods, disuse atrophy, increased sitting pressure and reduced circulation. Compared with usual care, activation of paralysed muscles using electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to markedly increase paralysed muscle mass, improve circulation of skin and muscle and improve sitting pressure distribution. ES might therefore be a useful method to reduce PU incidence.Methods: A multicentre randomized controlled trial (SCI PREVOLT) will be conducted with an economic and process evaluation alongside. One hundred participants with a SCI in the chronic phase and a minimal incidence of 1 PU in the last 5 years will be recruited from rehabilitation centres across the Netherlands. Participants will be stratified by centre and age and randomized to the intervention or control group. The intervention group will use ES at least 1 h/day during at least 4 times a week for 1 year next to usual care. The control group will only receive usual care. The primary outcome is the incidence of PUs, measured by a blinded person assessing the presence or absence of a PU on the buttocks on a photo made by the participant or his/her caregiver. The incidence of a PU will be evaluated every 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes include interface pressure distribution, blood flow in the profunda femoris artery, muscle thickness of the hamstrings and gluteal muscles and questionnaires about different dimensions of life, e.g. participation and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after randomization.Discussion: This study will assess if electrical stimulation is a (cost-)effective method to prevent PUs and reduce the risk factors of getting PUs. If ES is effective and cost-effective compared with usual care, ES could be implemented in daily treatment of individuals with a SCI.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trials Register NTR NL9469 . Registered on 26 May 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Societal costs of low back pain (LBP) are high, yet few studies have been performed to identify the predictive factors of high societal costs among chronic LBP patients. This study aimed to determine which factors predict high societal costs in patients with chronic LBP.Methods: Data of 6,316 chronic LBP patients were used. In the main analysis, high societal costs were defined as patients in the top 10% of cost outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using patients in the top 5% and top 20% of societal costs. Potential predictive factors included patient expectations, demographic factors (e.g. age, gender, nationality), socio-economic factors (e.g. employment, education level) and health-related factors (e.g. body mass index [BMI], general health, mental health). The final prediction models were obtained using backward selection. The model's prognostic accuracy (Hosmer-Lemeshow X2 , Nagelkerke's R2 ) and discriminative ability (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC]) were assessed, and the models were internally validated using bootstrapping.Results: Poor physical health, high functional disability, low health-related quality of life, high impact of pain experience, non-Dutch nationality and decreasing pain were found to be predictive of high societal costs in all models, and were therefore considered robust. After internal validation, the models' fit was good, their explained variance was relatively low (≤14.1%) and their AUCs could be interpreted as moderate (≥0.71).Conclusion: Future studies should focus on understanding the mechanisms associated with the identified predictors for high societal costs in order to design effective cost reduction initiatives.Significance: Identifying low back pain patients who are at risk (risk stratification) of becoming high-cost users and making appropriate initiatives could help in reducing high costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) is a refined post-clinical rehabilitation approach, in which a multidisciplinary hospital-based team guides a network of primary care physical therapists in the treatment of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the TTCM compared to regular care.Methods: A controlled-before-and-after study was performed in a level 1 trauma center. The TTCM includes four elements: 1) a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic, 2) coordination and individual goal setting for each patient by this team, 3) a network of primary care physical therapists, 4) E-health support for transmural communication. Intervention group patients were prospectively followed (3, 6 and 9 months). The control group consisted of 4 clusters of patients who either had their first consultation at the outpatient clinic 0, 3, 6 or 9 months ago. Outcomes included generic- and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), pain, functional status, patient satisfaction, and perceived recovery. Between-group comparisons were made using linear regression analyses. The recovery pattern of intervention group patients was identified using longitudinal data analysis methods.Results: A total of 83 participants were included in the intervention group. In the control group, 202 participants were included (68 in the baseline cluster, 26 in the 3-month cluster, 51 in the 6-month cluster, 57 in the 9-month cluster). Between-group differences were statistically significant in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL at 9 months, pain at 6 and 9 months, functional status at 6 and 9 months, patient satisfaction at 3, 6 and 9 months, and perceived recovery at 6 months. No significant differences were found between groups for generic HR-QOL at any time point. Generic HR-QOL, disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, and functional status significantly improved in a linear fashion among intervention group patients during the nine-month follow-up period.Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the TTCM is effective in improving patient related outcome measures, such as disease-specific HR-QOL, pain and functional status. A multicenter, and ideally randomized controlled trial, is required to confirm these results.Trial Registration: The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5474). Registered 12 October 2015. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a supervised, moderate-to-high intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) have proven to be effective in maintaining physical fitness and reducing fatigue among breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. This study evaluated the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of Onco-Move and OnTrack.Methods: A total of 230 patients were randomized to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or usual care (UC). Health outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), general and physical fatigue, and physical fitness measured at baseline, end of chemotherapy, and 6-month follow-up. Societal costs included professional and informal health care, work absenteeism, and unpaid productivity costs. Cost data were based on 3-monthly questionnaires, supplemented by medication data obtained from pharmacies.Results: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective due to the relatively high willingness-to-pay necessary to reach reasonable probabilities of cost-effectiveness (QALY, general and physical fatigue). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for OnTrack compared to UC were €26,916/QALY, €788/1-point decrease in general fatigue and €1402/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. The probability of OnTrack being cost-effective ranged from 31% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0-79% at a WTP of €80,000/QALY, 97% at a WTP of €15,000/1-point decrease in general fatigue, and 86% at a WTP of €24,000/1-point decrease in physical fatigue. Both interventions had a low probability of being cost-effective for physical fitness. The probability of cost-effectiveness for both interventions was greater among compliant participants.Conclusions: Onco-Move is not likely to be cost-effective. Depending on the decision-makers' willingness-to-pay, OnTrack could be considered cost-effective in comparison with UC. Trial registration Clinical trial registration number of the Netherlands Trial Register-NTR2159. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improved organization of trauma care in the acute phase has reduced mortality of trauma patients. However, there has been limited attention for the optimal organization of post-clinical rehabilitation of trauma patients. Therefore we developed a Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM). This TTCM consists of four equally important components: 1) intake and follow up consultations by a multidisciplinary team consisting of trauma surgeon and hospital based trauma physical therapist, 2) coordination and individual goal setting for each patient by this team, 3) primary care physical therapy by specialized physical therapists organized in a network and 4) E-health support for transmural communication and treatment according to protocols. The aim of the current study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of the TTCM.Methods: Patients will be recruited from the outpatient clinic for trauma patients of the VU University Medical Center (VUmc) if they have at least one fracture and were discharged home. A controlled-before-and-after study design will be used to compare the TTCM with regular care. Measurements will take place after the first outpatient clinical visit and after 3, 6 and 9 months. Prior to the implementation of the TTCM, 200 patients (50 patients per time point) will be included in the control group. After implementation 100 patients will be included in the intervention group and prospectively followed. Between-group comparisons will be made separately for each time point. In addition, the recovery pattern of patients in the intervention group will be studied using longitudinal data analysis methods. Effectiveness will be evaluated in terms of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), pain, functional status, patient satisfaction, and perceived recovery. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed from a societal perspective, meaning that all costs related to the TTCM will be taken into account including intervention, health care, absenteeism, presenteeism and unpaid productivity. Additionally, a process evaluation will be performed to explore the extent to which the TTCM was implemented as intended, and to identify possible facilitators and barriers associated with its implementation.Discussion: This planned research will give insight into the feasibility of the TTCM model in clinical practice and will give a first indication of the cost-effectiveness of the TTCM and help us to further develop post-clinical trauma care.Trial Registration: Trial registration number: NTR5474 . The Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR). Registered 12 October 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]