Economic Evaluation of Inpatient Multimodal Occupational Rehabilitation vs. Outpatient Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Sick-Listed Workers with Musculoskeletal- or Common Mental Disorders

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation (I-MORE) compared to outpatient acceptance and commitment therapy (O-ACT) for individuals sick listed due to musculoskeletal- or common mental disorders during two-years of follow-up. Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation with a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial with 24 months follow-up. Individuals sick listed 2 to 12 months were randomized to I-MORE (n = 85) or O-ACT (n = 79). The outcome was number of working days. Healthcare use and sick leave data were obtained by registry data. Results: Total healthcare costs during the 24 months was 12,057 euros (95% CI 9,181 to 14,933) higher for I-MORE compared to O-ACT, while the difference in production loss was 14,725 euros (95% CI -1,925 to 31,375) in favour of I-MORE. A difference of 43 (95% CI -6 to 92) workdays, in favour of I-MORE, gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 278 euros for one workday, less than the cost of one day production (339 euros). Net societal benefit was 2,667 euros during two years of follow-up. Conclusion: Despite considerable intervention costs, the lower production loss resulted in I-MORE being cost-effective when compared to O-ACT. Based on economic arguments, I-MORE should be implemented as a treatment alternative for individuals on long-term sick leave. However, more research on subgroup effects and further follow-up of participants' permanent disability pension awards are warranted.

Automated summary

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of inpatient multimodal occupational rehabilitation (I-MORE) compared to outpatient acceptance and commitment therapy (O-ACT) for individuals sick listed due to musculoskeletal- or common mental disorders during two years of follow-up. Results show that despite higher healthcare costs, I-MORE is cost-effective due to lower production loss. Based on economic arguments, I-MORE should be implemented as a treatment alternative for individuals on long-term sick leave. Rating: 8 out of 10.