Back to Search Start Over

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a people-centred care model for community-living older people versus usual care:a randomised controlled trial

Authors :
Kari, H. (Heini)
Äijö-Jensen, N. (Nelli)
Kortejärvi, H. (Hanna)
Ronkainen, J. (Jukka)
Yliperttula, M. (Marjo)
Laaksonen, R. (Raisa)
Blom, M. (Marja)
Kari, H. (Heini)
Äijö-Jensen, N. (Nelli)
Kortejärvi, H. (Hanna)
Ronkainen, J. (Jukka)
Yliperttula, M. (Marjo)
Laaksonen, R. (Raisa)
Blom, M. (Marja)
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background: There is a need for effective and cost-effective interprofessional care models that support older people to maintain their quality of life (QoL) and physical performance to live longer independently in their own homes. Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate effectiveness, QoL and physical performance, and cost-utility of a people-centred care model (PCCM), including the contribution of clinically trained pharmacists, compared with that of usual care in primary care. Methods: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a two-year follow-up was conducted. The participants were multimorbid community-living older people, aged ≥75 years. The intervention comprised an at-home patient interview, health review, pharmacist-led clinical medication review, an interprofessional team meeting, and nurse-led care coordination and health support. At the baseline and at the 1-year and 2-year follow-ups, QoL (SF-36, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) and physical performance (SPPB, Short Performance Physical Battery) were measured. Additionally, a physical dimension component summary in the SF-36 was calculated. The SF-36 data were transformed into SF-6D scores to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Healthcare resource use were collected and transformed into costs. A healthcare payer perspective was adopted. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and one-way sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: No statistically or clinically significant differences were observed between the usual care (n = 126) and intervention group (n = 151) patients in their QoL; at the 2-year follow-up the mean difference was −0.02, (95 % CI -0.07; 0.04,p = 0.56). While the mean difference between the groups in physical performance at the 2-year follow-up was −1.02, (−1.94;-0.10,p = 0.03), between the physical component summary scores it was −7.3, (−15.2; 0.6,p = 0.07). The ICER was −73 638€/QALY, hence, the developed PCCM dominated usual care, since i

Details

Database :
OAIster
Notes :
application/pdf, English
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1309068151
Document Type :
Electronic Resource