Self-managed, computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for chronic aphasia post-stroke: An economic evaluation.
Aphasia
Cost-Effectiveness
Health Services
Rehabilitation
Treatment
computer supported
cost-effectiveness
self-management
speech therapy
Journal
Clinical rehabilitation
ISSN: 1477-0873
Titre abrégé: Clin Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8802181
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
26
11
2020
medline:
21
7
2021
entrez:
25
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To examine the cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised word finding therapy as an add-on to usual care for people with aphasia post-stroke. Cost-effectiveness modelling over a life-time period, taking a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social service perspective. Based on the Big CACTUS randomised controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. Big CACTUS included 278 people with long-standing aphasia post-stroke. Computerised word finding therapy plus usual care; usual care alone; usual care plus attention control. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, comparing the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for each intervention. Credible intervals (CrI) for costs and QALYs, and probabilities of cost-effectiveness, were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Subgroup and scenario analyses investigated cost-effectiveness in different subsets of the population, and the sensitivity of results to key model inputs. Adding computerised word finding therapy to usual care had an ICER of £42,686 per QALY gained compared with usual care alone (incremental QALY gain: 0.02 per patient (95% CrI: -0.05 to 0.10); incremental costs: £732.73 per patient (95% CrI: £674.23 to £798.05)). ICERs for subgroups with mild or moderate word finding difficulties were £22,371 and £21,262 per QALY gained respectively. Computerised word finding therapy represents a low cost add-on to usual care, but QALY gains and estimates of cost-effectiveness are uncertain. Computerised therapy is more likely to be cost-effective for people with mild or moderate, as opposed to severe, word finding difficulties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33233972
doi: 10.1177/0269215520975348
pmc: PMC8073872
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
703-717Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/21/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000 Apr-Jun;35(2):303-14
pubmed: 10912257
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22
pubmed: 28833869
Stroke. 2012 Jul;43(7):1904-11
pubmed: 22733794
Trials. 2015 Jan 27;16:18
pubmed: 25623162
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
Value Health. 2010 Aug;13(5):509-18
pubmed: 20230546
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 05;14:75
pubmed: 24903709
Pharmacoecon Open. 2018 Sep;2(3):225-231
pubmed: 29802576
Clin Rehabil. 2007 Oct;21(10):885-94
pubmed: 17981847
Stroke. 2004 Feb;35(2):607-12
pubmed: 14726549
Med Care. 1997 Nov;35(11):1095-108
pubmed: 9366889
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 10;13(7):e0200096
pubmed: 29990345
Stroke. 2001 Sep;32(9):2131-6
pubmed: 11546907
Med Decis Making. 1993 Oct-Dec;13(4):322-38
pubmed: 8246705
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Sep;18(9):821-833
pubmed: 31397288
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 01;(6):CD000425
pubmed: 27245310
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):402-9
pubmed: 24290333
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013 Sep-Oct;48(5):508-21
pubmed: 24033650
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780