Comparison home care service
Cost effective
Diabetes
Diabetic foot
Economic evaluation
Randomized trial
Journal
Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders
ISSN: 2251-6581
Titre abrégé: J Diabetes Metab Disord
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101590741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
13
01
2020
accepted:
03
04
2020
entrez:
19
6
2020
pubmed:
19
6
2020
medline:
19
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Providing health care to patients at home could be causing the mortality and readmission rates reduction in addition to satisfaction of both patients and health care providers increase. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of home care service compared to hospital based care in patients with diabetic foot ulcer. An economic evaluation study and a trial study were simultaneously conducted in Iran. In trial phase, patients with diabetic foot ulcer were randomly assigned to the home care or hospital care. The Cost and Quality of life data were determined as measures of the study. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for comparative purposes. The model consisted of five stages of the disease. The Tree Age Pro 2009 and R software's were used for data analysis. 120 patients were enrolled in our trial; among which 30 patients were in home care service group and 90 patients in hospital based care group. The rate of ulcer size reduction in hospital based care was significant ( Regarding current evidence, home care strategy for patients suffering diabetic foot ulcer enjoys more cost effectiveness compared to hospital care. It is suggested that healthcare policy makers determine the tariff for health care services for disease groups according to the activity based costing approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32550196
doi: 10.1007/s40200-020-00527-y
pii: 527
pmc: PMC7270299
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
445-452Informations de copyright
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interestThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Références
BMC Public Health. 2011 Jul 14;11:564
pubmed: 21756350
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Oct;21(5):763-81
pubmed: 26135524
Am Fam Physician. 1998 Mar 15;57(6):1325-32, 1337-8
pubmed: 9531915
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2007 Oct 30;7:32
pubmed: 17971195
Am J Cardiol. 1993 Jul 15;72(2):154-61
pubmed: 8328376
BMJ. 2001 Nov 10;323(7321):1123-4
pubmed: 11701584
Iran J Radiol. 2013 Jun;10(2):61-7
pubmed: 24046780
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006 Sep;47(3):285-92
pubmed: 16200556
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2017 Nov;11 Suppl 1:S347-S350
pubmed: 28314537
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012 Feb;28 Suppl 1:107-11
pubmed: 22271734
Eur Respir J. 1996 Aug;9(8):1605-10
pubmed: 8866580
Sao Paulo Med J. 2016 Jan-Feb;134(1):93-4
pubmed: 26786605
Chest. 1991 Sep;100(3):607-12
pubmed: 1889241
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Sep;64(3):648-55
pubmed: 27565588
Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 5;197(9):512-9
pubmed: 23121588
Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5 Suppl 2:10-6
pubmed: 18577133
Iran J Public Health. 2016 Jul;45(7):867-74
pubmed: 27516992
Arch Intern Med. 1990 Jun;150(6):1274-80
pubmed: 2112906
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Oct 08;(4):CD003164
pubmed: 18843641
Int Wound J. 2018 Feb;15(1):106-113
pubmed: 29052352