Literature DB >> 17713794

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of an RCT in rehabilitation after lumbar spinal fusion: a low-cost, behavioural approach is cost-effective over individual exercise therapy.

Rikke Søgaard1, Cody E Bünger, Ida Laurberg, Finn B Christensen.   

Abstract

Recently, Christensen et al. reported the clinical effects of a low-cost rehabilitation program equally efficient to a relatively intensive program of individual, physiotherapist-guided exercise therapy. Yet, the low-cost approach is not fully supported as an optimal strategy until a full-scale economic evaluation, including extra-hospital effects such as service utilization in the primary health care sector and return-to-work, is conducted. The objective of this study was to conduct such evaluation i.e. investigate the cost-effectiveness of (1) a low-cost rehabilitation regimen with a behavioural element and (2) a regimen of individual exercise therapy, both in comparison with usual practice, from a health economic, societal perspective. Study design was a cost-effectiveness evaluation of an RCT with a 2-year follow-up. Ninety patients having had posterolateral or circumferential fusion (indicated by chronic low back pain and localized pathology) were randomized 3 months after their spinal fusion. Validated pain- and disability index scales were applied at baseline and at 2 years postoperative. Costs were measured in a full-scale societal perspective. The probability of the behavioural approach being cost-effective was close to 1 given pain as the prioritized effect measure, and 0.8 to 0.6 (dependent on willingness to pay per effect unit) given disability as the prioritized effect measure. The probability of the exercise therapy approach being cost-effective was modest due to inferior effectiveness. Results proved robust to relevant sensitivity analysis although a differentiated cost-effectiveness ratio between males and females was suspected. In conclusion, a simple behavioural extension, of setting up group meetings for patients, to a regimen with a strict physiotherapeutic focus was found cost-effective, whereas the cost-effectiveness of increasing frequency and guidance of a traditional physiotherapeutic regimen was unlikely in present trial setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17713794      PMCID: PMC2365542          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0479-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  27 in total

Review 1.  Rehabilitation following first-time lumbar disc surgery: a systematic review within the framework of the cochrane collaboration.

Authors:  Raymond W J G Ostelo; Henrica C W de Vet; Gordon Waddell; Maria R Kerckhoffs; Pieter Leffers; Maurits van Tulder
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease.

Authors:  M A Koopmanschap; F F Rutten; B M van Ineveld; L van Roijen
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Costs and effects in lumbar spinal fusion. A follow-up study in 136 consecutive patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Rikke Soegaard; Finn Bjarke Christensen; Terkel Christiansen; Cody Bünger
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2006-07-27       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  The Danish prescription registries.

Authors:  D Gaist; H T Sørensen; J Hallas
Journal:  Dan Med Bull       Date:  1997-09

5.  The Danish National Health Service Register. A tool for primary health care research.

Authors:  N F Olivarius; H Hollnagel; A Krasnik; P A Pedersen; H Thorsen
Journal:  Dan Med Bull       Date:  1997-09

6.  The economic value of human life.

Authors:  D P Rice; B S Cooper
Journal:  Am J Public Health Nations Health       Date:  1967-11

7.  Low Back Pain Rating scale: validation of a tool for assessment of low back pain.

Authors:  Claus Manniche; Karsten Asmussen; Birgitte Lauritsen; Henrik Vinterberg; Svend Kreiner; Alan Jordan
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Cost-effectiveness of lumbar fusion and nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain in the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group.

Authors:  Peter Fritzell; Olle Hägg; Dick Jonsson; Anders Nordwall
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  The development of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire. An assessment of the impact of spinal pain on behavior.

Authors:  G F Lawlis; R Cuencas; D Selby; C E McCoy
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  [The national patient registry. Evaluation of data quality].

Authors:  J Mosbech; J Jørgensen; M Madsen; K Rostgaard; K Thornberg; T D Poulsen
Journal:  Ugeskr Laeger       Date:  1995-06-26
View more
  4 in total

1.  The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure's semi-structured interview: its applicability to lumbar spinal fusion patients. A prospective randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Lisa Gregersen Oestergaard; Thomas Maribo; Cody Erik Bünger; Finn Bjarke Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The effect of timing of rehabilitation on physical performance after lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized clinical study.

Authors:  Lisa G Oestergaard; Claus V Nielsen; Cody E Bünger; Karen Svidt; Finn B Christensen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  The impact of economic evaluation on quality management in spine surgery.

Authors:  Norbert Boos
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Physiotherapy rehabilitation following lumbar spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Alison Rushton; Gillian Eveleigh; Emma-Jane Petherick; Nicola Heneghan; Rosalie Bennett; Gill James; Chris Wright
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 2.692

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.