Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; School of Nursing and Midwifery, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018 Jul;19(7):619-622.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.10.008. Epub 2018 Jan 9.
To examine the within-trial costs and cost-effectiveness of using PARO, compared with a plush toy and usual care, for reducing agitation and medication use in people with dementia in long-term care.
An economic evaluation, nested within a cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Twenty-eight facilities in South-East Queensland, Australia.
A total of 415 residents, all aged 60 years or older, with documented diagnoses of dementia.
Facilities were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: PARO (individual, nonfacilitated 15-minute sessions, 3 afternoons per week for 10 weeks); plush toy (as per PARO but with artificial intelligence disabled); and usual care.
The incremental cost per Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Short Form (CMAI-SF) point averted from a provider's perspective. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (BLINDED FOR REVIEW).
For the within-trial costs, the PARO group was $50.47 more expensive per resident compared with usual care, whereas the plush toy group was $37.26 more expensive than usual care. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in agitation levels after the 10-week intervention. The point estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $13.01 for PARO and $12.85 for plush toy per CMAI-SF point averted relative to usual care.
The plush toy used in this study offered marginally greater value for money than PARO in improving agitation. However, these costs are much lower than values estimated for psychosocial group activities and sensory interventions, suggesting that both a plush toy and the PARO are cost-effective psychosocial treatment options for agitation.
研究与使用 PARO 相比,毛绒玩具和常规护理在减少长期护理中痴呆症患者的激越和药物使用方面的试验内成本和成本效益。
一项嵌套在集群随机对照试验中的经济评估。
澳大利亚昆士兰州东南部的 28 个设施。
共有 415 名年龄在 60 岁及以上、有明确痴呆症诊断的居民参与。
设施被随机分为 3 组之一:PARO(个体,非促进 15 分钟会议,每周 3 次,共 10 周);毛绒玩具(与 PARO 相同,但人工智能已禁用);和常规护理。
从提供者的角度来看,每个 Cohen-Mansfield 激越量表-短表(CMAI-SF)点的增量成本。澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册处(BLINDED FOR REVIEW)。
就试验内成本而言,PARO 组每位居民比常规护理组多花费 50.47 澳元,而毛绒玩具组比常规护理组多花费 37.26 澳元。在 10 周干预后,两组之间的激越水平没有统计学上的显著差异。PARO 和毛绒玩具的增量成本效益比的点估计值分别为 13.01 澳元和 12.85 澳元,相对于常规护理,每 CMAI-SF 点降低 1 分。
与 PARO 相比,本研究中使用的毛绒玩具在改善激越方面具有略微更高的性价比。然而,这些成本远低于估计用于心理社会小组活动和感觉干预的成本,这表明毛绒玩具和 PARO 都是治疗激越的具有成本效益的心理社会治疗选择。