Suppr超能文献

初级卫生保健中哮喘自我管理的随机对照经济评估。

Randomized controlled economic evaluation of asthma self-management in primary health care.

作者信息

Schermer Tjard R, Thoonen Bart P, van den Boom Guido, Akkermans Reinier P, Grol Richard P, Folgering Hans T, van Weel Chris, van Schayck Constant P

机构信息

Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Center for Quality of Care Research, and University Lungcentre Dekkerswald, University Medical Center St. Radboud, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Oct 15;166(8):1062-72. doi: 10.1164/rccm.2105116.

Abstract

In this randomized controlled economic evaluation we compared guided asthma self-management with usual asthma care according to guidelines for Dutch family physicians. Nineteen family practices were randomized, and 193 adults with stable asthma (98 self-management, 95 usual care) were included and monitored for 2 years. We hypothesized that introducing self-management would not compromise asthma control and cost would be equal to or lower than in usual care. Patient-specific cost data were collected, preference-based utilities were assessed, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and successfully treated week gained was calculated. Self-management patients gained 0.039 QALY (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003 to 0.075) and experienced 81 (95% CI, 78 to 84) successfully treated weeks in 2 years' time; the corresponding figures for usual care were 0.024 (95% CI, -0.022 to 0.071) and 75 (95% CI, 72 to 78). Total costs were 1,084 euros(95% CI, 938 to 1,228) for self-management and 1,097 euros (95% CI, 933 to 1,260) for usual care. Self-management patients consumed 1,680 (95% CI, 1,538 to 1,822) puffs of budesonide, usual care patients 1,897 (95% CI, 1,679 to 2,115). Mean productivity cost due to limited activity days was 213 euros lower among self-management patients. When all costs were included, self-management was cost-effective on all outcomes. The probability that self-management was cost-effective relative to usual care in terms of QALYs was 52%. We conclude that guided self-management is a safe and efficient alternative approach compared with asthma treatment usually provided in Dutch primary care.

摘要

在这项随机对照经济评估中,我们根据荷兰家庭医生指南,将哮喘自我管理指导与常规哮喘护理进行了比较。19个家庭诊所被随机分组,193名稳定期哮喘成人(98名自我管理组,95名常规护理组)被纳入并监测2年。我们假设引入自我管理不会损害哮喘控制,且成本将等于或低于常规护理。收集了患者特定的成本数据,评估了基于偏好的效用,并计算了每质量调整生命年(QALY)和每成功治疗周的增量成本。自我管理组患者在2年内获得了0.039个QALY(95%置信区间[CI],0.003至0.075),经历了81(95%CI,78至84)个成功治疗周;常规护理组的相应数字为0.024(95%CI,-0.022至0.071)和75(95%CI,72至78)。自我管理组的总成本为1084欧元(95%CI,938至1228),常规护理组为1097欧元(95%CI,933至1260)。自我管理组患者使用了1680(95%CI,1538至1822)吸布地奈德,常规护理组患者使用了1897(95%CI,1679至2115)吸。自我管理组患者因活动天数受限导致的平均生产力成本低213欧元。当纳入所有成本时,自我管理在所有结果上都具有成本效益。自我管理相对于常规护理在QALYs方面具有成本效益的概率为52%。我们得出结论,与荷兰初级保健中通常提供的哮喘治疗相比,自我管理指导是一种安全有效的替代方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验