Nienke Bleijenberg1, Irene Drubbel2, Rabin Ej Neslo3, Marieke J Schuurmans4, Valerie H Ten Dam2, Mattijs E Numans5, G Ardine de Wit6, Niek J de Wit2. 1. Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.bleijenberg@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department Health Technology Assessment, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of General Practice, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department Health Technology Assessment, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of General Practice, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program. METHODS: Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm. RESULTS: Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%. CONCLUSION: A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program. METHODS: Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm. RESULTS: Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at €20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%. CONCLUSION: A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money.
Authors: Erik Baltaxe; Thomas Czypionka; Markus Kraus; Miriam Reiss; Jan Erik Askildsen; Renata Grenkovic; Tord Skogedal Lindén; János György Pitter; Maureen Rutten-van Molken; Oscar Solans; Jonathan Stokes; Verena Struckmann; Josep Roca; Isaac Cano Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sara Bousema; Annemieke J Verwoerd; Lucas M Goossens; Arthur M Bohnen; Patrick J E Bindels; Gijs Elshout Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; L Woodhouse; L Rodríguez-Mañas; L P Fried; J Woo; I Aprahamian; A Sanford; J Lundy; F Landi; J Beilby; F C Martin; J M Bauer; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; B Dong; H Arai; E O Hoogendijk; C W Won; A Abbatecola; T Cederholm; T Strandberg; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; L Flicker; S Bhasin; M Aubertin-Leheudre; H A Bischoff-Ferrari; J M Guralnik; J Muscedere; M Pahor; J Ruiz; A M Negm; J Y Reginster; D L Waters; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Moritz Kraus; Maximilian Michael Saller; Sebastian Felix Baumbach; Carl Neuerburg; Ulla Cordula Stumpf; Wolfgang Böcker; Alexander Martin Keppler Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-01-05