| Literature DB >> 28316739 |
E Sharif Azar1, M Ravanbakhsh1, A Torabipour2, E Amiri1, M H Haghighyzade3.
Abstract
The rehabilitation services for children with cerebral palsy are provided in two forms: home-based care and center-based care. The aim of this research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the home-based accordance with the center-based care for kids with cerebral palsy. In this cost-effectiveness research, 56 children under 12 years old were assigned randomly to two rehabilitation programs: (1) clinic-based rehabilitation services (CBRS); and (2) home-based rehabilitation services (HBRS). Data were collected by two questionnaires: a strong life quality survey of children with cerebral palsy (CP QOL-Child) and medical and non-medical costs' checklists. Finally, the incremental expense-efficacy rate (ICER) was used to determine the further expenses of one unit of the quality of life gained by CBRS compared with HBRS. The mean costs per patients for the home-based care group were less than the ones for the clinic-based care unit (US$ 660.3 vs. US$ 933.8). The costs of the rehabilitation services and transportation were the main costs in the two patients' groups. The quality of life for cases in the home-based care group was better than the one of the clinic-based care team. The results showed that the home-based care method was more cost-effective than the centre-based care approach in children with cerebral palsy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at about US$ 2.6. The conclusion was that home-based care centers were more cost-effective than the centre-based care centers for children with cerebral palsy. Therefore, it was suggested that the health policy makers pay more attention to developing home-based care strategy in physically challenged children.Entities:
Keywords: cerebral palsy; cost-effectiveness; home care; quality of life
Year: 2015 PMID: 28316739 PMCID: PMC5319251
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Descriptive characteristics of children with cerebral palsy
| Patients characteristics | Clinic | Home | |
| Percent (frequency) | Percent (frequency) | ||
| Age | 4-6 years | 14 (50) | 4 (14.3) |
| 9-7 years | 10 (35.7) | 14 (50) | |
| 10-12 years | 4 (14.3) | 10 (35.7) | |
| Sex | male | 15 (53.6) | 14 (50) |
| female | 13 (46.4) | 14 (50) | |
| Type of CP | Spastic | 21 (75) | 21 (75) |
| Ataxic | 3 (10.7) | 3 (10.7) | |
| Other | 4 (14.3) | 4 (14.3) | |
| Medical insurance fund | Social Security fund | 14 (50) | 13 (46.4) |
| Medical Services | 7 (25) | 6 (21.4) | |
| Iranian health | 3 (10.7) | 5 (17.9) | |
| Uninsured | 4 (14.3) | 4 (14.3) |
The average cost of home and clinic-based care on insurance funds
| Groups | Mean ± SD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social Security insurance | The Medical Services insurance | Iranian Health insurance | Uninsured | |
| Clinic (n = 28) | 682.3 ±308.6 | 921.1 ±202.4 | 1000.1± 442.5 | 1775± 320.2 |
| Home (n = 28) | 662.7 ± 209.8 | 879 ± 125.7 | 907.5 ± 350.7 | 933.6 ± 396.5 |
| Rial 29963 equal to US$ 1 (at the last officials exchange rate in November 2015) |
Domains of quality of life in homecare (n = 28) and clinic care (n = 28)
| Domains of quality of life | Groups | Mean ± SD | Mean Difference | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social wellbeing and acceptance | Clinic | 59.85 ± 11.74 | ||
| Home | 78.25 ± 6.96 | -7.12 | 0.001 | |
| Functioning | Clinic | 52.89 ± 12.93 | ||
| Home | 80.17 ± 6.77 | -9.88 | 0.001 | |
| Participation and physical health | Clinic | 54 ± 14.56 | ||
| Home | 73.5 ± 4.31 | -6.79 | 0.001 | |
| Emotional wellbeing and self esteem | Clinic | 29.1 ± 9.6 | ||
| Home | 38.75 ± 3.26 | -5.03 | 0.001 | |
| Access to services | Clinic | 45.64 ± 12.17 | ||
| Home | 70.42 ± 9.62 | -8.44 | 0.001 | |
| Pain and impact of disability | Clinic | 40.89 ± 10.35 | ||
| Home | 42.46 ± 6.33 | 0.68 | 0.49 | |
| Family Health | Clinic | 15.89 ± 7.77 | ||
| Home | 20.57 ± 4.27 | -2.79 | 0.001 | |
| Total mean score of quality of life | Clinic | 298.2 ± 50.89 | ||
| Home | 404.1 ± 21.62 | -10.12 | 0.001 |
Difference in service costs between groups
| Service | clinic(N = 28) | Home (N = 28) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Service cost (US$) | Service cost (US$) | |||
| Medical | Physiotherapy | 3180.6 | 3873.8 | 0.03 |
| Occupational Therapy | 9060.7 | 7854.9 | 0.001 | |
| Speech Therapy | 2047.5 | 2509.1 | 0.007 | |
| Drug | 3111.5 | 882.7 | 0.28 | |
| Aid Device | 654.1 | 781 | 0.001 | |
| Visits by specialist | 1084.5 | 579.1 | 0.02 | |
| Nursing Care | 901.1 | 1081.2 | 1.21 | |
| Diagnosis Tests | 367.1 | 281.9 | 0.3 | |
| Radiology | 600.7 | 116.2 | 0.01 | |
| Injection | 40 | 17.9 | 0.001 | |
| Non-medical | Transportation | 5098.2 | 512.2 | 0.008 |
| Total cost | 26146 | 18490 | 0.001 | |
| 933.8 | 933.8 | 660.3 | 0.001 | |
| Rial 29963 equal to US$ 1 (at the last official exchange rate in November 2015) |
The cost/ effectiveness ratios of the two groups
| Groups | Cost | Effectiveness | C/ E | ICER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic | 933.8 | 298.2 | 3.1 | - |
| Home | 660.3 | 404.1 | 1.6 | 2.6 |
A sensitivity analysis of cost-effectiveness
| Variation | ICER | Change (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial scenario | 2.6 | ||
| Low value (-20%) | High value (20%) | ||
| Rehabilitation services* | 2.57 | 2.58 | ± 0.1% |
| Transportation | 2.27 | 2.89 | ± 11.9% |
| * Physiotherapy, Occupational therapy, Speech therapy |