Jonas A Ipsen, Jan Abel Olsen, Bjarke Viberg, Lars T Pedersen, Inge H Bruun, Eva Draborg
{"title":"Rehabilitation and care after hip fracture: a cost-utility analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.","authors":"Jonas A Ipsen, Jan Abel Olsen, Bjarke Viberg, Lars T Pedersen, Inge H Bruun, Eva Draborg","doi":"10.2340/jrm.v56.40897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the effectiveness and costs of Rehabilitation for Life (RFL) compared with usual rehabilitation and care after hip fracture to determine which course offered the most value for money.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cost-utility analysis.</p><p><strong>Patient: </strong>Community-dwelling patients aged 65+ after hip fracture.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>123 intervention and 122 control patients were included. Data was collected at 5 points from discharge to 1-year follow-up. Cost analysis included expenses to hospital, general practice, specialist services, medications, rehabilitation, home and informal care, transport, and waiting times. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intervention group experienced a statistically significant mean QALY gain of 0.02 -compared with the control group. The intervention was more costly by €4,224, resulting in an incremental cost of €159,990 per QALY gained. Two municipalities had several patients in respite care, yielding an imbalance. A subanalysis excluding these patients demonstrated QALY gain at 0.03 and the cost difference of €2,586 was not statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The intervention demonstrated a slight improvement in effectiveness over the control but was costly. For patients not requiring respite care, the intervention effect was slightly higher, and the cost differences statistically insignificant. In total 91% received informal care and the economic contribution of informal care exceeded the municipal home care services.</p>","PeriodicalId":54768,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","volume":"56 ","pages":"jrm40897"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11600605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.40897","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the effectiveness and costs of Rehabilitation for Life (RFL) compared with usual rehabilitation and care after hip fracture to determine which course offered the most value for money.
Design: Cost-utility analysis.
Patient: Community-dwelling patients aged 65+ after hip fracture.
Method: 123 intervention and 122 control patients were included. Data was collected at 5 points from discharge to 1-year follow-up. Cost analysis included expenses to hospital, general practice, specialist services, medications, rehabilitation, home and informal care, transport, and waiting times. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
Results: The intervention group experienced a statistically significant mean QALY gain of 0.02 -compared with the control group. The intervention was more costly by €4,224, resulting in an incremental cost of €159,990 per QALY gained. Two municipalities had several patients in respite care, yielding an imbalance. A subanalysis excluding these patients demonstrated QALY gain at 0.03 and the cost difference of €2,586 was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The intervention demonstrated a slight improvement in effectiveness over the control but was costly. For patients not requiring respite care, the intervention effect was slightly higher, and the cost differences statistically insignificant. In total 91% received informal care and the economic contribution of informal care exceeded the municipal home care services.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine is an international peer-review journal published in English, with at least 10 issues published per year.
Original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, special reports and letters to the editor are published, as also are editorials and book reviews. The journal strives to provide its readers with a variety of topics, including: functional assessment and intervention studies, clinical studies in various patient groups, methodology in physical and rehabilitation medicine, epidemiological studies on disabling conditions and reports on vocational and sociomedical aspects of rehabilitation.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
