4.2 Article

Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: Cost-effectiveness analysis

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462306050859

关键词

neck-pain physical therapy; randomized controlled trial; economics; quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of brief physiotherapy intervention versus usual physiotherapy management in patients with neck pain of musculoskeletal origin in the community setting. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial. Individuals 18 years of age and older with neck pain of more than 2 weeks were recruited from physiotherapy departments with referrals from general practitioners (GPs) in the East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire regions in the United Kingdom. A total of 139 patients were allocated to the brief intervention, and 129 to the usual physiotherapy. Resource use data were prospectively collected on the number of physiotherapy sessions, hospital stay, specialist, and GP visits. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using EQ-5D data collected at baseline, 3 and 12 months from the start of the treatment. The economic evaluation was conducted from the U.K. National Health System perspective. Results: On average, brief intervention produced lower costs ( pound - 68; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], pound - 103 to 2 - 35) and marginally lower QALYs (-0.001; 95 percent CI, -0.030 to 0.028) compared with usual physiotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY of 68,000 pound for usual physiotherapy These results are sensitive to patients' treatment preferences. Conclusions: Usual physiotherapy may not be good value for money for the average individual in this trial but could be a cost-effective strategy for those who are indifferent toward which treatment they receive.

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

4.2
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