• J Am Med Dir Assoc · Dec 2017

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Cost-Effectiveness of a Proactive Primary Care Program for Frail Older People: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

    • Nienke Bleijenberg, Irene Drubbel, Rabin Ej Neslo, Marieke J Schuurmans, Valerie H Ten Dam, Mattijs E Numans, G Ardine de Wit, and Niek J de Wit.
    • 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.
    • J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Dec 1; 18 (12): 1029-1036.e3.

    BackgroundA 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.MethodsEconomic 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.ResultsOut 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%.ConclusionA proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money.Copyright © 2017 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…