BACKGROUND: Since the late 1990 s, cost pressure has led to a growing interest in outpatient rehabilitation in Germany where predominantly inpatient rehabilitation has been provided. Taking into account the feasibility of a randomized design, the aim of this study was to compare outpatient and inpatient cardiac rehabilitation from a societal perspective. METHOD: A comprehensive cohort design was applied. Costs during rehabilitation were measured using individual documentation of the rehabilitation centers. Economic end points were quality of life (EQ-5D), and total direct and indirect costs. A propensity score approach, integrated into a simultaneous regression framework for cost and effects, was used to control for selection bias. Bootstrap analysis was applied for assessing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included in the study (112 inpatients, 51 outpatients). As randomization was chosen by only 2.5% of participants, the study had to be analyzed as an observational study. Direct costs during inpatient rehabilitation were significantly higher by 600 euro (+/-318; p < 0.001) compared to outpatient rehabilitation (2,016 euro +/- 354 euro vs. 1,416 euro +/- 315), while there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life. Over the 12-month follow-up period, adjusted costs difference in total cost was estimated at -2,895 euro (p = 0.102) and adjusted difference in effects at 0.018 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (n.s.) in favor of outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: The ratio of mean cost over mean effect difference (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) indicates dominance of outpatient rehabilitation, but at a considerable statistical uncertainty. However, outpatient rehabilitation cannot be rejected from an economic perspective.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Since the late 1990 s, cost pressure has led to a growing interest in outpatient rehabilitation in Germany where predominantly inpatient rehabilitation has been provided. Taking into account the feasibility of a randomized design, the aim of this study was to compare outpatient and inpatient cardiac rehabilitation from a societal perspective. METHOD: A comprehensive cohort design was applied. Costs during rehabilitation were measured using individual documentation of the rehabilitation centers. Economic end points were quality of life (EQ-5D), and total direct and indirect costs. A propensity score approach, integrated into a simultaneous regression framework for cost and effects, was used to control for selection bias. Bootstrap analysis was applied for assessing uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were included in the study (112 inpatients, 51 outpatients). As randomization was chosen by only 2.5% of participants, the study had to be analyzed as an observational study. Direct costs during inpatient rehabilitation were significantly higher by 600 euro (+/-318; p < 0.001) compared to outpatient rehabilitation (2,016 euro +/- 354 euro vs. 1,416 euro +/- 315), while there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life. Over the 12-month follow-up period, adjusted costs difference in total cost was estimated at -2,895 euro (p = 0.102) and adjusted difference in effects at 0.018 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (n.s.) in favor of outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: The ratio of mean cost over mean effect difference (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) indicates dominance of outpatient rehabilitation, but at a considerable statistical uncertainty. However, outpatient rehabilitation cannot be rejected from an economic perspective.
Authors: Rod S Taylor; Allan Brown; Shah Ebrahim; Judith Jolliffe; Hussein Noorani; Karen Rees; Becky Skidmore; James A Stone; David R Thompson; Neil Oldridge Journal: Am J Med Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Wolfgang Greiner; Tom Weijnen; Martin Nieuwenhuizen; Siem Oppe; Xavier Badia; Jan Busschbach; Martin Buxton; Paul Dolan; Paul Kind; Paul Krabbe; Arto Ohinmaa; David Parkin; Montserat Roset; Harri Sintonen; Aki Tsuchiya; Frank de Charro Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2003-09
Authors: B Bjarnason-Wehrens; D Bott; L Benesch; K O Bischoff; B Buran-Kilian; D Gysan; U Hollenstein; W Mayer-Berger; R Wilkniss; G Sauer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn; Heike Englert; Karl Wegscheider; Hendrike Berger; Frank Sonntag; Heinz Völler; Wolfgang Meyer-Sabellek; Thomas Reinhold; Eberhard Windler; Hugo A Katus; Stefan N Willich Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Raban V Jeger; Lucas Jörg; Peter Rickenbacher; Matthias E Pfisterer; Andreas Hoffmann Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Klaus Bonaventura; Alexander W Leber; Christian Sohns; Mattias Roser; Leif-Hendrik Boldt; Franz X Kleber; Wilhelm Haverkamp; Marc Dorenkamp Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Vinay Guduguntla; John D Syrjamaki; Chad Ellimoottil; David C Miller; Richard L Prager; Edward C Norton; Patricia Theurer; Donald S Likosky; James M Dupree Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jelena Stevanović; Petros Pechlivanoglou; Marthe A Kampinga; Paul F M Krabbe; Maarten J Postma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Reiner Leidl; Bernd Schweikert; Harry Hahmann; Juergen M Steinacker; Peter Reitmeir Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 3.186