Brusco Natasha Kareem, Watts Jennifer J, Shields Nora, Taylor Nicholas F
School of Allied Health, Department of Rehabilitation, Sport and Nutrition, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Physiotherapy Services, Cabrini Health, 183 Wattletree Road, Malvern, VIC, 3144, Australia.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 18;15:165. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0822-3.
Our previous work showed that providing additional rehabilitation on a Saturday was cost effective in the short term from the perspective of the health service provider. This study aimed to evaluate if providing additional rehabilitation on a Saturday was cost effective at 12 months, from a health system perspective inclusive of private costs.
Cost effectiveness analyses alongside a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow up inclusive of informal care. Participants were adults admitted to two publicly funded inpatient rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus additional Saturday rehabilitation. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and for a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) in functional independence.
A total of 996 patients [mean age 74 years (SD 13)] were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or control group (n = 500). The intervention was associated with improvements in QALY and MCID in function, as well as a non-significant reduction in cost from admission to 12 months (mean difference (MD) AUD$6,325; 95% CI -4,081 to 16,730; t test p = 0.23 and MWU p = 0.06), and a significant reduction in cost from admission to 6 months (MD AUD$6,445; 95% CI 3,368 to 9,522; t test p = 0.04 and MWU p = 0.01). There is a high degree of certainty that providing additional rehabilitation services on Saturday is cost effective. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of informal carers and self-reported health service utilization, favored the intervention.
From a health system perspective inclusive of private costs the provision of additional Saturday rehabilitation for inpatients is likely to have sustained cost savings per QALY gained and for a MCID in functional independence, for the inpatient stay and 12 months following discharge, without a cost shift into the community.
Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry November 2009 ACTRN12609000973213.
我们之前的研究表明,从医疗服务提供者的角度来看,在周六提供额外的康复治疗在短期内具有成本效益。本研究旨在从包括私人成本在内的卫生系统角度评估在周六提供额外的康复治疗在12个月时是否具有成本效益。
进行成本效益分析,并开展一项单盲随机对照试验,随访12个月,包括非正式护理。参与者为入住两家公立住院康复机构的成年人。对照组接受周一至周五的常规护理康复服务,干预组接受常规护理加额外的周六康复治疗。增量成本效益比报告为每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本,以及功能独立性方面最小临床重要差异(MCID)的成本。
共有996名患者[平均年龄74岁(标准差13)]被随机分配到干预组(n = 496)或对照组(n = 500)。干预措施与QALY改善、功能方面的MCID改善相关,并且从入院到12个月成本有非显著降低(平均差值(MD)6325澳元;95%置信区间-4081至16730;t检验p = 0.23,曼-惠特尼U检验p = 0.06),从入院到6个月成本有显著降低(MD 6445澳元;95%置信区间3368至9522;t检验p = 0.04,曼-惠特尼U检验p = 0.01)。高度确定在周六提供额外的康复服务具有成本效益。对非正式护理人员成本和自我报告的卫生服务利用成本进行的敏感性分析支持干预措施。
从包括私人成本在内的卫生系统角度来看,为住院患者在周六提供额外的康复治疗,对于住院期间以及出院后的12个月,每获得一个QALY以及功能独立性方面的MCID,可能会持续节省成本,且不会将成本转移到社区。
澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心2009年11月ACTRN12609000973213。