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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |
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. |
---|