4.3 Article

Can Technology-Based Physical Activity Programs for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Be Cost-Effective?

期刊

TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1288-1292

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2020.0398

关键词

economic evaluation; cost-effectiveness; pulmonary rehabilitation; activity monitors; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); telemedicine; e-Health

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service [IIR 09-366]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K12HL138049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a technology-based physical activity intervention for COPD and found that both intervention methods were cost-effective. Further research should focus on more direct estimates of health utilities and downstream healthcare costs.
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a technology-based physical activity (PA) intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: A secondary data analysis was performed from a randomized controlled trial in COPD of an activity monitor alone or an activity monitor plus a web-based PA intervention. Models estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with usual care. Results: The estimated ICER for both groups was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY (activity monitor alone = $10,437/QALY; website plus activity monitor intervention = $13,065/QALY). A probabilistic simulation estimated 76% of the activity monitor-alone group and 78% of the intervention group simulations to be cost-effective. Conclusion(s): Both the activity monitor-alone group and the activity monitor plus website group were cost-effective at the base case by using conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Further research would benefit from a more direct estimate of health utilities and downstream health care costs. Clinical Trials.gov NCT01102777.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据