OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and outcome of occupational therapy-led assessment with social worker-led assessment of older people, in terms of their independence and quality of life. DESIGN:Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. The analysis took viewpoints of health services and patients. The primary outcome measure for cost-effectiveness was dependency using the Community Dependency Index (CDI). Secondary outcomes included utility scores based on the EuroQoL (EQ-5D). Resource use was measured for each patient, from clinical records and from patient carer interviews at 8 months. Unit costs of health and social care resources were derived from local sources and national datasets. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two arms of the trial in terms of cost-effectiveness. There is an apparent increase in mean cost per case for the occupational therapy arm but this is not statistically significant (mean difference in cost per case 542 pounds, 95% CI 434-1,519 pounds). Mean total costs of care per participant were 4,379 pounds and 3,837 pounds for the occupational therapy and social work arms, respectively. At best the intervention would improve outcomes at a cost of 14,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The probability of such an outcome was <50%. CONCLUSIONS: From a policy perspective, the lack of difference in clinical and cost-effectiveness means that either a social work or an occupational therapy service is successful in making care assessments that enable an older person to remain in their own home.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and outcome of occupational therapy-led assessment with social worker-led assessment of older people, in terms of their independence and quality of life. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. The analysis took viewpoints of health services and patients. The primary outcome measure for cost-effectiveness was dependency using the Community Dependency Index (CDI). Secondary outcomes included utility scores based on the EuroQoL (EQ-5D). Resource use was measured for each patient, from clinical records and from patient carer interviews at 8 months. Unit costs of health and social care resources were derived from local sources and national datasets. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two arms of the trial in terms of cost-effectiveness. There is an apparent increase in mean cost per case for the occupational therapy arm but this is not statistically significant (mean difference in cost per case 542 pounds, 95% CI 434-1,519 pounds). Mean total costs of care per participant were 4,379 pounds and 3,837 pounds for the occupational therapy and social work arms, respectively. At best the intervention would improve outcomes at a cost of 14,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The probability of such an outcome was <50%. CONCLUSIONS: From a policy perspective, the lack of difference in clinical and cost-effectiveness means that either a social work or an occupational therapy service is successful in making care assessments that enable an older person to remain in their own home.
Authors: Alan Simpson; Chris Flood; Julie Rowe; Jody Quigley; Susan Henry; Cerdic Hall; Richard Evans; Paul Sherman; Len Bowers Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson; Sean Grant; Jennifer Burton; Amanda Parsons; Kristen Underhill; Paul Montgomery Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240