Cargando…

Economic evaluation of an Australian nurse home visiting programme: a randomised trial at 3 years

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of ‘right@home’ Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care. DESIGN: A cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bohingamu Mudiyanselage, Shalika, Price, Anna M H, Mensah, Fiona K, Bryson, Hannah E, Perlen, Susan, Orsini, Francesca, Hiscock, Harriet, Dakin, Penelope, Harris, Diana, Noble, Kristy, Bruce, Tracey, Kemp, Lynn, Goldfeld, Sharon, Gold, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8650480/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34873002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052156
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of ‘right@home’ Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care. DESIGN: A cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation. SETTING: The right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years. PARTICIPANTS: 722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: First, a cost–consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained. RESULTS: When compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95% CI $A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95% CI −0.01 to 0.02). The probability of right@home being cost-effective by child age 3 years is less than 20%, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $A50 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89962120.