Abstract
Abstract
Objective Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care.
Design
Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial.
Setting
General practices in three centres in England and Scotland.
Participants
797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care.
Intervention
The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses.
Results
Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY).
Conclusions
The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal.
Objective Patients with multiple chronic health conditions are often managed in a disjointed fashion in primary care, with annual review clinic appointments offered separately for each condition. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the 3D intervention, which was developed to improve the system of care.
Design
Economic evaluation conducted alongside a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial.
Setting
General practices in three centres in England and Scotland.
Participants
797 adults with three or more chronic conditions were randomised to the 3D intervention, while 749 participants were randomised to receive usual care.
Intervention
The 3D approach: comprehensive 6-monthly general practitioner consultations, supported by medication reviews and nurse appointments.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
The primary economic evaluation assessed the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS). Costs were related to changes in a range of secondary outcomes (QALYs accrued by both participants and carers, and deaths) in a cost–consequences analysis from the perspectives of the NHS/PSS, patients/carers and productivity losses.
Results
Very small increases were found in both QALYs (adjusted mean difference 0.007 (−0.009 to 0.023)) and costs (adjusted mean difference £126 (£−739 to £991)) in the intervention arm compared with usual care after 15 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £18 499, with a 50.8% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY (55.8% at £30 000 per QALY).
Conclusions
The small differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and the uncertainty was substantial; therefore, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of the 3D approach from the NHS/PSS perspective should be considered equivocal.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e030110 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | BMJ Open |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 19 Jan 2020 |
Research Groups and Themes
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute
- BRTC
- BTC (Bristol Trials Centre)
- HEHP@Bristol
Access to Document
- Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BMJ at https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/1/e030110. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.