Suppr超能文献

针对社区居住的体弱老年人的积极综合初级保健方法的成本效益。

Cost-effectiveness of a proactive, integrated primary care approach for community-dwelling frail older persons.

作者信息

Vestjens Lotte, Cramm Jane M, Birnie Erwin, Nieboer Anna P

机构信息

1Department of Socio-Medical Sciences, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2019 Jul 9;17:14. doi: 10.1186/s12962-019-0181-8. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The article reports on the cost-effectiveness of the proactive, integrated primary care program - (FFF) compared with usual primary care for community-dwelling frail older persons in the Netherlands.

METHODS

This study had a matched quasi-experimental design (pretest and posttest). The economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 12 months. The target population consisted of community-dwelling frail older persons aged ≥ 75 years in the FFF intervention group (11 general practitioner (GP) practices) and in the control group receiving usual care (4 GP practices). The effectiveness measures for the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were subjective well-being (Social Production Function Instrument for the Level of well-being short; SPF-ILs) and QALYs (EuroQol; EQ-5D-3L), respectively. Costs were assessed using resource use questionnaires. Differences in mean effectiveness between groups were assessed using univariate, multilevel and propensity score matched analyses, with and without imputation of missing values. Differences in costs were assessed using Mann-Whitney -tests and independent samples -tests. Bootstrapping was performed, and predicted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were depicted on cost-effectiveness planes.

RESULTS

The various analyses showed slightly different results with respect to differences in estimated costs and effects. Multilevel analyses showed a small but significant difference between the groups for well-being, in favor of the control group. No significant differences between groups in terms of QALYs were found. Imputed data showed that mean total costs were significantly higher in the intervention group at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Proactive, integrated care for community-dwelling frail older persons as provided in the FFF program is most likely not a cost-effective initiative, compared with usual primary care in the Netherlands, in terms of well-being and QALYs over a 12-month period.

摘要

背景

本文报告了与荷兰社区居家体弱老年人的常规初级保健相比,主动式综合初级保健项目(FFF)的成本效益。

方法

本研究采用匹配的准实验设计(前测和后测)。从医疗保健角度进行经济评估,时间跨度为12个月。目标人群包括FFF干预组(11个全科医生诊所)和接受常规护理的对照组(4个全科医生诊所)中年龄≥75岁的社区居家体弱老年人。成本效益分析和成本效用分析的有效性指标分别是主观幸福感(幸福水平社会生产功能简表;SPF-ILs)和质量调整生命年(欧洲五维度健康量表;EQ-5D-3L)。使用资源使用问卷评估成本。采用单变量、多水平和倾向得分匹配分析评估组间平均有效性差异,有无缺失值插补。使用曼-惠特尼检验和独立样本检验评估成本差异。进行了自抽样,成本效益平面上描绘了预测的增量成本效益比(ICERs)和增量成本效用比(ICURs)。

结果

各项分析在估计成本和效果差异方面显示出略有不同的结果。多水平分析显示,两组在幸福感方面存在微小但显著的差异,对照组更占优势。在质量调整生命年方面未发现组间有显著差异。插补数据显示,随访时干预组的平均总成本显著更高。

结论

与荷兰的常规初级保健相比,FFF项目中为社区居家体弱老年人提供的主动式综合护理在12个月期间的幸福感和质量调整生命年方面很可能不是一项具有成本效益的举措。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2186/6617694/6cb737430400/12962_2019_181_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验