Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial

Catherine Henderson, Martin Knapp, José-Luis Fernández, Jennifer Beecham, Shashivadan P Hirani, Michelle Beynon, Martin Cartwright, Lorna Rixon, Helen Doll, Peter Bower, Adam Steventon, Anne Rogers, Ray Fitzpatrick, James Barlow, Martin Bardsley, Stanton P Newman, Catherine Henderson, Martin Knapp, José-Luis Fernández, Jennifer Beecham, Shashivadan P Hirani, Michelle Beynon, Martin Cartwright, Lorna Rixon, Helen Doll, Peter Bower, Adam Steventon, Anne Rogers, Ray Fitzpatrick, James Barlow, Martin Bardsley, Stanton P Newman

Abstract

Purpose of the study: to examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of 'second-generation' telecare, in addition to standard support and care that could include 'first-generation' forms of telecare, compared with standard support and care that could include 'first-generation' forms of telecare.

Design and methods: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with nested economic evaluation. A total of 2,600 people with social care needs participated in a trial of community-based telecare in three English local authority areas. In the Whole Systems Demonstrator Telecare Questionnaire Study, 550 participants were randomised to intervention and 639 to control. Participants who were offered the telecare intervention received a package of equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, additional to their standard health and social care services. The control group received usual health and social care.

Primary outcome measure: incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The analyses took a health and social care perspective.

Results: cost per additional QALY was £297,000. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per QALY gained was only 16%. Sensitivity analyses combining variations in equipment price and support cost parameters yielded a cost-effectiveness ratio of £161,000 per QALY.

Implications: while QALY gain in the intervention group was similar to that for controls, social and health services costs were higher. Second-generation telecare did not appear to be a cost-effective addition to usual care, assuming a commonly accepted willingness to pay for QALYs.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN 43002091.

Keywords: economic evaluation; older people; social care; telecare.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.

References

    1. Wittenberg R, Hu B, Hancock R, et al. Projections of Demand for and Costs of Social Care for Older People in England, 2010 to 2030, Under Current and Alternative Funding Systems. London: PSSRU; 2011.
    1. Office for National Statistics. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2011. 2010-based national population projections - principal projection and key variants. Statistical bulletin.
    1. Telecare Services Association. What is telecare?. Available at: . (accessed 10 September 2012)
    1. Department of Health. London: Department of Health; 2010. A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens. Gateway Reference 14847.
    1. Kubitschke L, Cullen K. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2010. ICT & Ageing: European Study on Users, Markets and Technologies. Final Report.
    1. Department of Health. White Paper pilots: whole system long term conditions (LTC) demonstrator programme. 2007. (28 September 2008)
    1. Bower P, Cartwright M, Hirani S, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of telemonitoring in patients with long-term conditions and social care needs: protocol for the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:184.
    1. Roland M, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316:285. 1998–01–24 08:00:00.
    1. Hirani SP, Beynon M, Cartwright M, et al. The effect of telecare on the quality of life and psychological well-being of elderly recipients of social care over a 12-month period: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing. 2014;43:334–41.
    1. Beecham JK, Knapp MRJ. Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft G, Brewin C, Wing JK, editors. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd edition. London: Gaskell; 2001. pp. 220–4.
    1. Department of Health. Reference Costs 2009–10 Publication. London: Department of Health; 2011.
    1. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2010. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2010.
    1. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results From A UK General Population Survey. York: University of York;
    1. Drummond M, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
    1. Gould W, Pitblado JS, Poi B. Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Stata. 4th edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2010.
    1. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12.0. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.
    1. Gomes M, Ng ES, Grieve R, Nixon R, Carpenter J, Thompson SG. Developing appropriate methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of cluster randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:350–61.
    1. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14:487–96.
    1. Noble M, McLennan D, Wilkinson K, Whitworth A, Barnes H. The English Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2007. London: Communities and Local Government: Social Disadvantage Research Centre, University of Oxford;
    1. Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Dixon J, Doll H, Beynon M, et al. Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing. 2013;42:501–8.
    1. Bayer S, Barlow J. Analysis of Data on the Impact of Telecare Provided Under Telecare Capital Grant. London: Imperial College Business School;
    1. Beale S, Truman P, Sanderson D, Kruger J. The initial evaluation of the Scottish Telecare Development Program. J Technol Human Serv. 2010;28:60–73.
    1. Roush RE, Teasdale TA. Personal emergency response services: do the benefits justify the cost in seniors housing and care properties? Sen Hous Care J. 2011;19:73–82.
    1. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1651–68.
    1. Hawton A, Green C, Dickens AP, et al. The impact of social isolation on the health status and health-related quality of life of older people. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:57–67.
    1. Forder JE, Caiels J. Measuring the outcomes of long-term care. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:1766–74.
    1. Davies A, Rixon L, Newman S. Systematic review of the effects of telecare provided for a person with social care needs on outcomes for their informal carers. Heal Soc Care Comm. 2013;21:582–97.
    1. Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.
    1. Poole T. Telecare and Older People. Appendix to Wanless Social care review (Wanless D, Fernandez JL, Poole T, Beesley L, Henwood M, Moscone F. Securing good care for older people: Taking a long-term view. London: King's Fund, 2006). King's Fund.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner