Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial
OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to imp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31959601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030110 |
_version_ | 1783501681976147968 |
---|---|
author | Thorn, Joanna Man, Mei-See Chaplin, Katherine Bower, Peter Brookes, Sara Gaunt, Daisy Fitzpatrick, Bridie Gardner, Caroline Guthrie, Bruce Hollinghurst, Sandra Lee, Victoria Mercer, Stewart W Salisbury, Chris |
author_facet | Thorn, Joanna Man, Mei-See Chaplin, Katherine Bower, Peter Brookes, Sara Gaunt, Daisy Fitzpatrick, Bridie Gardner, Caroline Guthrie, Bruce Hollinghurst, Sandra Lee, Victoria Mercer, Stewart W Salisbury, Chris |
author_sort | Thorn, Joanna |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING: General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION: The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS: Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN06180958 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7044971 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70449712020-03-09 Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial Thorn, Joanna Man, Mei-See Chaplin, Katherine Bower, Peter Brookes, Sara Gaunt, Daisy Fitzpatrick, Bridie Gardner, Caroline Guthrie, Bruce Hollinghurst, Sandra Lee, Victoria Mercer, Stewart W Salisbury, Chris BMJ Open Health Economics OBJECTIVE: Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial. SETTING: General practices in three centres in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care. INTERVENTION: The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses. RESULTS: Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN06180958 BMJ Publishing Group 2020-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7044971/ /pubmed/31959601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030110 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Economics Thorn, Joanna Man, Mei-See Chaplin, Katherine Bower, Peter Brookes, Sara Gaunt, Daisy Fitzpatrick, Bridie Gardner, Caroline Guthrie, Bruce Hollinghurst, Sandra Lee, Victoria Mercer, Stewart W Salisbury, Chris Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title | Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred approach to managing multimorbidity in primary care: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial |
topic | Health Economics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31959601 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030110 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT thornjoanna costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT manmeisee costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT chaplinkatherine costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT bowerpeter costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT brookessara costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gauntdaisy costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT fitzpatrickbridie costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT gardnercaroline costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT guthriebruce costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT hollinghurstsandra costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT leevictoria costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT mercerstewartw costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT salisburychris costeffectivenessofapatientcentredapproachtomanagingmultimorbidityinprimarycareapragmaticclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial |