Cargando…

Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study

BACKGROUND: The recent surge of asylum seekers in the European Union (EU) is raising questions about the EU’s ability to integrate newcomers into the economy and into society; particularly those who need specialized services for the treatment of severe trauma. This study investigated whether rehabil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bager, Line, Hansen, Kristian Schultz, Andersen, Carit Jacques, Wang, Shr-Jie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29773075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3145-3
_version_ 1783324236792725504
author Bager, Line
Hansen, Kristian Schultz
Andersen, Carit Jacques
Wang, Shr-Jie
author_facet Bager, Line
Hansen, Kristian Schultz
Andersen, Carit Jacques
Wang, Shr-Jie
author_sort Bager, Line
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The recent surge of asylum seekers in the European Union (EU) is raising questions about the EU’s ability to integrate newcomers into the economy and into society; particularly those who need specialized services for the treatment of severe trauma. This study investigated whether rehabilitating traumatised refugees represents ‘value-for-money’ (VfM) in terms of intervention cost per health gain and in a long-term and societal perspective. METHODS: The economic evaluation comprised a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and a partial cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CUA incorporated data on Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for 45 patients who were treated at the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims, Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2001–2004 and followed for up to 2 years, to determine the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the CBA, data was collected for 44 patients who completed treatment between 2001 and 2004 and 44 matched controls on the waiting list, for the patients’ primary health care utilisation, and personal and family labour income from 2001 to 2014. This was analysed to evaluate the Net Social Benefit (NSB) of the programme. RESULTS: The average cost of treatment was found to be about 32,000 USD per patient (2016 prices) with an average gain in QALY of 0.82. The treatment was cost effective according to the ICER threshold suggested by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (UK). At the individual level, the NSB remained negative throughout the study period. However, at the family income level the intervention proved to have been beneficial after 3 years. CONCLUSION: The implication of the study is, that providing rehabilitation to severely traumatised refugee families can be an economically viable strategy, considering the economic effects observed at the family level.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5958407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59584072018-05-24 Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study Bager, Line Hansen, Kristian Schultz Andersen, Carit Jacques Wang, Shr-Jie BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The recent surge of asylum seekers in the European Union (EU) is raising questions about the EU’s ability to integrate newcomers into the economy and into society; particularly those who need specialized services for the treatment of severe trauma. This study investigated whether rehabilitating traumatised refugees represents ‘value-for-money’ (VfM) in terms of intervention cost per health gain and in a long-term and societal perspective. METHODS: The economic evaluation comprised a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and a partial cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CUA incorporated data on Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for 45 patients who were treated at the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims, Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2001–2004 and followed for up to 2 years, to determine the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the CBA, data was collected for 44 patients who completed treatment between 2001 and 2004 and 44 matched controls on the waiting list, for the patients’ primary health care utilisation, and personal and family labour income from 2001 to 2014. This was analysed to evaluate the Net Social Benefit (NSB) of the programme. RESULTS: The average cost of treatment was found to be about 32,000 USD per patient (2016 prices) with an average gain in QALY of 0.82. The treatment was cost effective according to the ICER threshold suggested by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (UK). At the individual level, the NSB remained negative throughout the study period. However, at the family income level the intervention proved to have been beneficial after 3 years. CONCLUSION: The implication of the study is, that providing rehabilitation to severely traumatised refugee families can be an economically viable strategy, considering the economic effects observed at the family level. BioMed Central 2018-05-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5958407/ /pubmed/29773075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3145-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018, corrected publication June 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bager, Line
Hansen, Kristian Schultz
Andersen, Carit Jacques
Wang, Shr-Jie
Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title_full Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title_fullStr Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title_full_unstemmed Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title_short Does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? A follow-up of a Danish case-study
title_sort does multidisciplinary rehabilitation of tortured refugees represent ‘value-for-money’? a follow-up of a danish case-study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29773075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3145-3
work_keys_str_mv AT bagerline doesmultidisciplinaryrehabilitationoftorturedrefugeesrepresentvalueformoneyafollowupofadanishcasestudy
AT hansenkristianschultz doesmultidisciplinaryrehabilitationoftorturedrefugeesrepresentvalueformoneyafollowupofadanishcasestudy
AT andersencaritjacques doesmultidisciplinaryrehabilitationoftorturedrefugeesrepresentvalueformoneyafollowupofadanishcasestudy
AT wangshrjie doesmultidisciplinaryrehabilitationoftorturedrefugeesrepresentvalueformoneyafollowupofadanishcasestudy