Learning and coping strategies versus standard education in cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial

Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez, Vibeke Lynggaard, Ole May, Rikke Søgaard, Nasrin Tayyari Dehbarez, Vibeke Lynggaard, Ole May, Rikke Søgaard

Abstract

Background: Learning and coping education strategies (LC) was implemented to enhance patient attendance in the cardiac rehabilitation programme. This study assessed the cost-utility of LC compared to standard education (standard) as part of a rehabilitation programme for patients with ischemic heart disease and heart failure.

Methods: The study was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial with 825 patients who were allocated to LC or standard rehabilitation and followed for 5 months. The LC approach was identical to the standard approach in terms of physical training and education, but with the addition of individual interviews and weekly team evaluations by professionals. A societal cost perspective including the cost of intervention, health care, informal time and productivity loss was applied. Cost was based on a micro-costing approach for the intervention and national administrative registries for other cost categories. Quality adjusted life years (QALY) were based on SF-6D measurements at baseline, after intervention and follow-up using British preference weights. Multiple imputation was used to handle non-response on the SF-6D. Conventional cost effectiveness methodology was employed to estimate the net benefit of the LC and to illustrate cost effectiveness acceptability curves. The statistical analysis was based on means and bootstrapped standard errors.

Results: An additional cost of DKK 6,043 (95% CI -5,697; 17,783) and a QALY gain of 0.005 (95% CI -0.001; 0.012) was estimated for LC. However, better utility scores in both arms were due to higher utility while receiving the intervention than better health after the intervention. The probability that LC would be cost-effective did not exceed 29% for any threshold values of willingness to pay per QALY. The alternative scenario analysis was restricted to a health care perspective and showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 62% over the threshold values.

Discussion: The LC was unlikely to be cost-effective within 5 months of follow-up from a societal perspective, but longer-term follow-up should be evaluated before a definite conclusion is drawn.

Conclusion: Future research should assess the LC strategies' long-term efficacy and cost-utility.

Trial registration: NCT01668394.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: main analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: sensitivity analysis

References

    1. Mampuya WM. Cardiac rehabilitation past, present and future: an overview. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2012;2:38–49.
    1. Reimer SW, Simoons ML, Boersma E, Gitt AK. Cardiovascular Diseases in Europe In:. European Society of Cardiology. 2006. cardiovasular disease in Europe. Accessed 1 Aug 2015.
    1. Jackson L, Leclerc J, Erskine Y, Linden W. Getting the most out of cardiac rehabilitation: a review of referral and adherence predictors. HeartBMJ. 2005;91:10–4. doi: 10.1136/hrt.2004.045559.
    1. Leo AS, Franklin BA, Costa F, Balady GJ, Berra KA, Stewart KJ, Thompson D, Williams MA, Lauer MS. Cardiac Rehabilitation and Secondary Prevention of coronary heart disease. American Heart Association, 2005; doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000151788.08740.5C
    1. Grace SL, Abbey SE, Shnek ZM, Irvine J, Franche RL, Stewart DE. Cardiac rehabilitation I: review of psychosocial factors. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2002;24(3):121–6. doi: 10.1016/S0163-8343(02)00178-0.
    1. Goulding L, Furze G, Birks Y. Randomized controlled trials of interventions to change maladaptive illness beliefs in people with coronary heart disease: systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(5):946–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05306.x.
    1. Wittrup I. Learning and Coping. Patient Education on the Patients’ Premises. Central Denmark Region: Public Health and Quality Improvement. 2011. . Accessed 1 Aug 2015.
    1. Lynggaard V, May O, Beauchamp A, Nielsen CV, Wittrup I. LC-REHAB: randomized trial assessing the effect of a new patient education method -learning and coping strategies- in cardiac rehabilitation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2014;14:186. doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-14-186.
    1. Wong WP, Fenf J, Pwee kH, Lim J. A systematic review of economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:243. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-243.
    1. Bethel JNH, Lewin JPR, Dalal HM. Cardiac rehabilitation: it works so why isn’t it done (editorial) Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58:677–9. doi: 10.3399/bjgp08X342219.
    1. Sangster J, Church J, Haas M, Furber S, Bauman A. A Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Two Pedometer-based Telephone Coaching Programes for People with Cardiac Disease. Hearth, lung and Circulation. 2015;24:471–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2015.01.008.
    1. Stanely K. Design of Randomised Controlled Trials. American Hearth Association. 2007; doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.594945
    1. Charles JM, Edwards RT, Bywater T. Micro-Costing in Public Health Economics: Steps Towards a Standardized Framework, Using the Incredible Years Toddler Parenting Program as a Worked Example. Prev Sci. 2013;14:377–89. doi: 10.1007/s11121-012-0302-5.
    1. Statistics Denmark. Gross and Disposable income by region, gender and age range. 2014. . Accessed 30 Apr 2014.
    1. Andersen JS, Olivarius NF, Krasnik A. The Danish National Health Service Registry. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:34–7. doi: 10.1177/1403494810394718.
    1. Lynge E, Sandegaard JL, Rebolj M. The Danish National Patient Register. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:30–3. doi: 10.1177/1403494811401482.
    1. Kildemoes HW, Sørensen HT, Hallas J. The Danish National Prescription Registry. Scand J Public Health. 2011;39:38–41. doi: 10.1177/1403494810394717.
    1. Løkke A, Hilberg O, Tønnesen P, Ibsen R, Kjellberg J, Jennum P. Direct and indirect economic and health consequences of COPD in Denmark: a national register-based study: 1998–2010. BMJ. 2014;4:e004069. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004069.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2001;21:271–92. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
    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. doi: 10.1002/hec.944.
    1. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MJ, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potentials and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009; doi: .
    1. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practise. Stat Med. 2011;30:377–99. doi: 10.1002/sim.4067.
    1. Roysten P, White IR. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in STATA. J Stat Softw. 2011;45:4.
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci. 1986;1:54–77. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177013815.
    1. Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common Methodological Flaws in Economic Evaluation. Med Care. 2005;43:II7–14. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000170001.10393.b7.
    1. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, William AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2002;11:415–30. doi: 10.1002/hec.678.
    1. Stinnett AA, Mullahy j. Net benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18:68–80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800209.
    1. Brown JP, Clarck AM, Dalal H, Welch K, Taylor RS. Patient education in the management of coronary heart disease. The Cochrane Library. 2011;7(12):CD008895.
    1. Commodore-Mensah Y, Himmelfarb CR. Patient education strategies for hospitalized cardiovascular patients, A systematic review. J cardiovasc Nurse. 2011;27(2):154–74. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318239f60f.
    1. Murchie P, Campbell NC, Ritchie LD, Deans HG, Thain J. Effects of secondary prevention clinics on health status in patients with coronary heart disease: 4-year follow-up of a randomized trial in primary care. Fam Pract. 2004;21(5):567–74. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh514.
    1. Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, Jolliffe J, Noorani H, Rees K, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patient with coronary heart disease: systematic review and and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116:682–92. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.01.009.
    1. Muller-Nordhorn J, Roll S, Willich SN. Comparison of the short form(SF)-12 health status instrument with the SF-36 in patients with coronary heart disease. Heart. 2004

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する