K Dahlberg1, A Philipsson2, L Hagberg2, M Jaensson1, M Hälleberg-Nyman1, U Nilsson1. 1. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden. 2. University Health Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Box 1613, 701 16 Örebro, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most surgeries are done on a day-stay basis. Recovery assessment by phone points (RAPP) is a smartphone-based application (app) to evaluate patients after day surgery. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using RAPP for follow-up on postoperative recovery compared with standard care. METHODS: This study was a prospective parallel single-blind multicentre randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention group using RAPP or the control group receiving standard care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on individual data and included costs for the intervention, health effect [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)], and costs or savings in health-care use. RESULTS: The mean cost for health-care consumption during 2 weeks after surgery was estimated at €37.29 for the intervention group and €60.96 for the control group. The mean difference was €23.66 (99% confidence interval -46.57 to - 0.76; P=0.008). When including the costs of the intervention, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed net savings of €4.77 per patient in favour of the intervention. No difference in QALYs gained was seen between the groups (P=0.75). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 71%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that RAPP can be cost-effective but had no effect on QALY. RAPP can be a cost-effective tool in providing low-cost health-care contacts and in systematically assessing the quality of postoperative recovery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02492191.
BACKGROUND: Most surgeries are done on a day-stay basis. Recovery assessment by phone points (RAPP) is a smartphone-based application (app) to evaluate patients after day surgery. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using RAPP for follow-up on postoperative recovery compared with standard care. METHODS: This study was a prospective parallel single-blind multicentre randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention group using RAPP or the control group receiving standard care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on individual data and included costs for the intervention, health effect [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)], and costs or savings in health-care use. RESULTS: The mean cost for health-care consumption during 2 weeks after surgery was estimated at €37.29 for the intervention group and €60.96 for the control group. The mean difference was €23.66 (99% confidence interval -46.57 to - 0.76; P=0.008). When including the costs of the intervention, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed net savings of €4.77 per patient in favour of the intervention. No difference in QALYs gained was seen between the groups (P=0.75). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 71%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that RAPP can be cost-effective but had no effect on QALY. RAPP can be a cost-effective tool in providing low-cost health-care contacts and in systematically assessing the quality of postoperative recovery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02492191.
Authors: Marie-Laure Cittanova; Sophie Chauvier; Evelyne Combettes; Nicolas Boccheciampe; Vincent Gerbier; Marc Leone; Jean-Michel Constantin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-01-04