Cost-effectiveness analysis for a tele-based health coaching program for chronic disease in primary care

Erja Oksman, Miika Linna, Iiris Hörhammer, Johanna Lammintakanen, Martti Talja, Erja Oksman, Miika Linna, Iiris Hörhammer, Johanna Lammintakanen, Martti Talja

Abstract

Background: The burden of chronic disease and multimorbidity is rapidly increasing. Self-management support interventions are effective in reduce cost, especially when targeted at a single disease group; however, economical evidence of such complex interventions remains scarce. The objective of this study was to evaluate a cost-effectiveness analysis of a tele-based health-coaching intervention among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), coronary artery disease (CAD) and congestive heart failure (CHF).

Methods: A total of 1570 patients were blindly randomized to intervention (n = 970) and control (n = 470) groups. The intervention group received monthly individual health coaching by telephone from a specially trained nurse for 12-months in addition to routine social and healthcare. Patients in the control group received routine social and health care. Quality of life was assessed at the beginning of the intervention and follow-up measurements were made after 12 months health coaching. The cost included all direct health-care costs supplemented with home care and nursing home-care costs in social care. Utility was based on a Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement (15D instrument), and cost effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: The cost-effectiveness of health coaching was highest in the T2D group (ICER €20,000 per Quality-Adjusted Life Years [QALY]). The ICER for the CAD group was more modest (€40,278 per QALY), and in the CHF group, costs increased with no marked effect on QoL. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at the societal willingness to pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY, the probability of health coaching being cost effective was 55% in the whole study group.

Conclusions: The cost effectiveness of health coaching may vary substantially across patient groups, and thus interventions should be targeted at selected subgroups of chronically ill. Based on the results of this study, health coaching improved the QoL of T2D and CAD patients with moderate costs. However, the results are grounded on a short follow-up period, and more evidence is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of health-coaching programs.

Trial registration: NCT00552903 [Prospectively registered, registration date 1st November 2007, last updated 3rd February 2009].

Keywords: 15D; Chronic disease; Cost-effectiveness; Health coaching; Health-related quality of life; Self-management.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Distribution of bootstrapped incremental costs and health-related quality of life
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for all participants and diagnosis-based subgroups

References

    1. Rieken M, Struckmann V, Melchieorre MG, on the behalf of the ICARE4EU partners et al. ICARE 4EU: Improving care for people with multiple chronic condition in Europe. Eurohealth. 2013;19(3):29–31.
    1. Eurostat 2011. Available at:
    1. Kivelä K, Elo S, Kyngäs H, et al. The effects of health coaching on adult patient with chronic diseases: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97:147–157. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.07.026.
    1. Trappenburg J, Jonkman N, Jaarsma T, et al. Self-management: One size does not fit all. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(1):134–137. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.009.
    1. Ditewig J, Blok H, Havers J, et al. Effectiveness of self-management on mortality, hospital readmissions, chronic heart failure hospitalization rate and quality of life in patient with chronic heart failure: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:297–315. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.016.
    1. Panagioti M, Richardson G, Small N, et al. Self-management support interventions to reduce health care utilization without compromising outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:356. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-356.
    1. Riippa I. Building evidence for cost-effectiveness interventions in chronic care. Acknowledging context and mechanisms. Aalto University School of Science. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management. Hema Institute. Aalto University publication series. Doctoral Dissertation 142/2015.
    1. Basu R, Ory M, Towne S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the chronic disease self-management program: Implications for community- based organizations. Front Public Health. 2015;3:27. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00027.
    1. Graves N, Barnett A, Halton K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telephone-delivered intervention for physical activity and diet. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(9):e7135. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007135.
    1. Räsänen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, et al. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Finohta’s report. 2006;29:1–37.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: New guidance. 2006. Medical Research Council. Available from: .
    1. Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, et al. Methods of assessing of cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy. 2009;93(2):85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.07.012.
    1. Riippa I, Kahilakoski O-P, Linna M, et al. Can complex health interventions be evaluated using routine clinical and administrative data? – a realistic evaluation approach. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):1129–1136. doi: 10.1111/jep.12175.
    1. Palmer S, Tubbs I, Whybrow A. Health coaching to facilitate to promotion of health behaviour and achievement of health-related goals. Int J Health Promot Educ. 2003;41:91–93. doi: 10.1080/14635240.2003.10806231.
    1. Patja K, Absetz P, Auvinen A, et al. Health Coaching by telephony to support self-care in chronic diseases: clinical outcomes from The TERVA randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:147. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-147.
    1. Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life. Properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–336. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002086.
    1. Sintonen H. 15D Instrument. Available from:
    1. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Atherton DN. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):358–370. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002090.
    1. Kapiainen S, Väisänen A, Haula T. Terveyden- ja sosiaalihuollon yksikkökustannukset Suomessa vuonna 2011, THL (National Institute for Health and Welfare) Raportti 3/2014. Available at:
    1. Honkasalo M, Linna M, Sane T, et al. A comparative study of two various models of organising diabetes follow-up in public primary health care – the model influences the use of services, their quality and costs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;12:26. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-26.
    1. Bos IBCK, Hoving JL, van Tulder MW, et al. Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and general practitioner care for neck pain: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2003;326(7395):911. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7395.911.
    1. Van Spijker BAJ, Majo MC, Smit F, et al. Reducing suicidal ideation: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial of unguided web-based self-help. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(5) doi: 10.2196/jmir.1966.
    1. Briggs A, Fenn P. Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 1998;7(8):723–740. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723::AID-HEC392>;2-O.
    1. Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 1994;3(5):309–319. doi: 10.1002/hec.4730030505.
    1. Alanne S, Roine R, Räsänen P, Vainiola T, Sintonen H. Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):599–606. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4.
    1. Jacobs-van der Bruggen M, van Baal P, Hoogenveen R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of lifestyle modification in diabetes patient. Diabetes Care August. 2009;32(8):1453–1458. doi: 10.2337/dc09-0363.
    1. Evans L, Probert H, Shuldham C. Cardiac rehabilitation-past to present. J Res Nurs. 2009;4(3):223–240. doi: 10.1177/1744987109105829.
    1. Rollnick S, Miller WR, Butler CC. Motivational inteviewing in health care: Helping patient change behavior. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008.
    1. Prochaska JO, Butterworth S, Redding CA, et al. Initial efficacy of MI, TTM tailoring and HRI’s for multiple behaviors for employee health promotion. Prev Med. 2008;46:226–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.007.
    1. Rabarison KM, Bish CL, Massoudi ML. Economic evaluation echances public health decision making. Front Public Health. 2015;3:164. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00164.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit