Cargando…
Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care
BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation del...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388462/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32742199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00220-0 |
_version_ | 1783564314700939264 |
---|---|
author | Dineen-Griffin, Sarah Vargas, Constanza Williams, Kylie A. Benrimoj, Shalom I. Garcia-Cardenas, Victoria |
author_facet | Dineen-Griffin, Sarah Vargas, Constanza Williams, Kylie A. Benrimoj, Shalom I. Garcia-Cardenas, Victoria |
author_sort | Dineen-Griffin, Sarah |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC. METHODS: Participants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively. RESULTS: Patients (n = 894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n = 732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n = 524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n = 370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49–3811.22) per QALY. CONCLUSION: Economic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective. Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN: ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7388462 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73884622020-07-31 Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care Dineen-Griffin, Sarah Vargas, Constanza Williams, Kylie A. Benrimoj, Shalom I. Garcia-Cardenas, Victoria Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC. METHODS: Participants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively. RESULTS: Patients (n = 894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n = 732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n = 524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n = 370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49–3811.22) per QALY. CONCLUSION: Economic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective. Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN: ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018. BioMed Central 2020-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7388462/ /pubmed/32742199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00220-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Dineen-Griffin, Sarah Vargas, Constanza Williams, Kylie A. Benrimoj, Shalom I. Garcia-Cardenas, Victoria Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title | Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title_full | Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title_fullStr | Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title_short | Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
title_sort | cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388462/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32742199 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00220-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dineengriffinsarah costutilityofapharmacistledminorailmentservicecomparedwithusualpharmacistcare AT vargasconstanza costutilityofapharmacistledminorailmentservicecomparedwithusualpharmacistcare AT williamskyliea costutilityofapharmacistledminorailmentservicecomparedwithusualpharmacistcare AT benrimojshalomi costutilityofapharmacistledminorailmentservicecomparedwithusualpharmacistcare AT garciacardenasvictoria costutilityofapharmacistledminorailmentservicecomparedwithusualpharmacistcare |