Physiotherapy Department, Monash University; Allied Health Research Unit, Kingston Centre, Monash Health.
Allied Health Research Unit, Kingston Centre, Monash Health; Occupational Therapy Department, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Physiother. 2018 Jan;64(1):48-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.11.010. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
What is the comparative cost-effectiveness of a gym-based maintenance exercise program versus a home-based maintenance program with telephone support for adults with chronic health conditions who have previously completed a short-term, supervised group exercise program?
A randomised, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The economic evaluation took the form of a trial-based, comparative, incremental cost-utility analysis undertaken from a societal perspective with a 12-month time horizon.
People with chronic health conditions who had completed a 6-week exercise program at a community health service.
One group of participants received a gym-based exercise program and health coaching for 12 months. The other group received a home-based exercise program and health coaching for 12 months with telephone follow-up for the first 10 weeks.
Healthcare costs were collected from government databases and participant self-report, productivity costs from self-report, and health utility was measured using the European Quality of Life Instrument (EQ-5D-3L).
Of the 105 participants included in this trial, 100 provided sufficient cost and utility measurements to enable inclusion in the economic analyses. Gym-based follow-up would cost an additional AUD491,572 from a societal perspective to gain 1 quality-adjusted life year or 1year gained in perfect health compared with the home-based approach. There was considerable uncertainty in this finding, in that there was a 37% probability that the home-based approach was both less costly and more effective than the gym-based approach.
The gym-based approach was more costly than the home-based maintenance intervention with telephone support. The uncertainty of these findings suggests that if either intervention is already established in a community setting, then the other intervention is unlikely to replace it efficiently.
ACTRN12610001035011. [Jansons P, Robins L, O'Brien L, Haines T (2018) Gym-based exercise was more costly compared with home-based exercise with telephone support when used as maintenance programs for adults with chronic health conditions: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 48-54].
对于患有慢性疾病的成年人,在完成短期监督小组运动项目后,比较基于健身房的维持运动项目与基于家庭的维持项目(提供电话支持),哪种方案的性价比更高?
这是一项随机对照试验,在基线和 3、6、9、12 个月时进行盲法结局评估。经济评估采用基于试验的、比较性、增量成本效用分析,从社会角度出发,以 12 个月为时间范围。
曾在社区健康服务机构参加过 6 周运动项目的慢性疾病患者。
一组参与者接受基于健身房的运动项目和 12 个月的健康指导。另一组参与者接受基于家庭的运动项目和 12 个月的健康指导,前 10 周提供电话随访。
从政府数据库和参与者自我报告中收集医疗保健费用,从自我报告中收集生产力成本,使用欧洲生命质量量表(EQ-5D-3L)测量健康效用。
在这项试验中,纳入了 105 名参与者,其中 100 名提供了足够的成本和效用测量值,以便纳入经济分析。从社会角度来看,与基于家庭的方法相比,基于健身房的后续治疗将额外增加 491572 澳元的成本,才能获得 1 个质量调整生命年或 1 年完全健康的获益。这一发现存在很大的不确定性,因为基于家庭的方法在成本和效果上都优于基于健身房的方法的概率为 37%。
与基于家庭的、提供电话支持的维持干预措施相比,基于健身房的方法更昂贵。这些发现的不确定性表明,如果在社区环境中已经建立了任何一种干预措施,那么另一种干预措施不太可能有效地替代它。
ACTRN12610001035011。[Jansons P、Robins L、O'Brien L、Haines T(2018 年)在作为患有慢性疾病的成年人的维持方案时,与基于家庭的、提供电话支持的运动项目相比,基于健身房的运动项目更昂贵:一项随机试验的成本效益分析。《物理治疗杂志》64 期:48-54]。