Cost-effectiveness analysis of a chronic back pain multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) compared to standard care for privately insured in Germany.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Exercise
Germany
Health
Humans
Insurance
Low Back Pain
Mentoring
Propensity Score
Sick Leave
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Dec 2021
24 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
01
06
2021
accepted:
25
11
2021
entrez:
25
12
2021
pubmed:
26
12
2021
medline:
29
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach. Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group. This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view. The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) is highly recommended for chronic lower back pain (CLBP) treatment, but its economic benefit remains to be clearly demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to analyse the effect of a 12-month MBR programme of behavioural change coaching and device-supported exercise on direct medical costs, sick leave and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 24 months.
METHODS
METHODS
An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in Germany from a private health insurance perspective using data from a multi-centre, two-arm randomised controlled trial with parallel-group Zelen's randomisation and 24-month follow-up. After removing dissimilarities in characteristics between MBR and usual care (control) via propensity score matching, treatment effects were calculated using a difference-in-difference approach.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Base-case analysis of the MBR (n=112) and usual care group (n=111) showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €8,296 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Compared to the controls, MBR reduced economically unaccounted sick leave due to back pain in the last six months by 17.5 days (p = 0.001) and had a positive effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (0.046, p=0.026). Subgroup analysis of participants with major impairment demonstrated that a dominant intervention was possible, as reflected by an ICER of - €7,302 per QALY. Savings were driven by a - €1,824 reduction in back pain-specific costs. Moreover, sick leave was 27 days (p = 0.006) less in the MBR group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This first cost-effectiveness study with combined data from a private health insurer and a controlled trial in Germany demonstrated that long term MBR for the treatment of CLBP is cost-effective. Subgroups with major impairment from back pain benefitted more from the intervention than those with minor impairment. MBR significantly reduced sick leave in all participants. Hence, it is a profitable intervention from a societal point of view.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The trial of the evaluation study was retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register under trial number DRKS00015463 retrospectively (dated 4 Sept 2018).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34952585
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07337-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-07337-9
pmc: PMC8705190
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1362Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Implement Sci. 2019 May 7;14(1):49
pubmed: 31064375
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Feb;53(3):172-181
pubmed: 29678893
BMJ. 2010 Nov 30;341:c6414
pubmed: 21118874
J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Sep;12(7):659-68
pubmed: 16970536
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Apr;29(4):297-314
pubmed: 21395350
Healthcare (Basel). 2016 Jul 15;4(3):
pubmed: 27417632
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Jan 1;29(1):79-86
pubmed: 14699281
Healthc Policy. 2007 Nov;3(2):29-37
pubmed: 19305777
Med Care. 2020 Sep;58 Suppl 2 9S:S142-S148
pubmed: 32826784
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Mar 12;20(1):194
pubmed: 32164720
Prev Sci. 2015 Apr;16(3):475-85
pubmed: 25307417
Med Decis Making. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):160-9
pubmed: 15090102
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017 Apr;15(2):173-201
pubmed: 27550240
BMJ. 2015 Feb 18;350:h444
pubmed: 25694111
Schmerz. 2019 Apr;33(2):128-138
pubmed: 30707294
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 May-Jun;23(3):56-67
pubmed: 15160803
Pain. 1992 Aug;50(2):133-149
pubmed: 1408309
Biometrics. 2019 Dec;75(4):1391-1400
pubmed: 31009064
Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747
pubmed: 27745712
Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2917-30
pubmed: 12325108
J Pain Res. 2020 Jul 17;13:1823-1838
pubmed: 32765057
Pain. 2005 Feb;113(3):323-330
pubmed: 15661440
Phys Ther. 2021 Jun 1;101(6):
pubmed: 33561280
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 Jul;36(7):745-758
pubmed: 29779120
Psychosomatics. 2009 Nov-Dec;50(6):613-21
pubmed: 19996233
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 May 15;59(5):632-41
pubmed: 18438893
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Apr 19;6:52
pubmed: 16623946
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
Ann Intern Med. 2005 Dec 20;143(12):849-56
pubmed: 16365466
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jun;106:103507
pubmed: 32320936
Br Dent J. 2017 May 12;222(9):721-726
pubmed: 28496211
Eur J Pain. 2009 Mar;13(3):280-6
pubmed: 18524652
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Oct 15;44(20):1456-1464
pubmed: 31095119
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 11;169(9):858-66
pubmed: 19433697
Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Sep;15(3):593-602
pubmed: 23891180
Eur J Pain. 2019 Mar;23(3):621-634
pubmed: 30379386
Complement Ther Med. 2020 Mar;49:102354
pubmed: 32147083
J Korean Med Sci. 2018 Jun 26;33(34):e213
pubmed: 30127705
Physiotherapy. 2020 Sep;108:98-107
pubmed: 32745777
Neuromodulation. 2014 Oct;17 Suppl 2:3-10
pubmed: 25395111
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2356-2367
pubmed: 29573870
Schmerz. 2021 Jul 2;:
pubmed: 34213648
Eur Spine J. 2018 Nov;27(11):2791-2803
pubmed: 29971708
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct 21;19(1):714
pubmed: 31639016
Asia Pac J Public Health. 2003;15(2):79-87
pubmed: 15038680
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jan 15;38(2):148-56
pubmed: 22781003
Gesundheitswesen. 2019 Oct;81(10):831-838
pubmed: 29253915
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013 Oct;27(5):591-600
pubmed: 24315141
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Oct 1;45(19):1383-1385
pubmed: 32516169
Psychosoc Med. 2004 Oct 14;1:Doc07
pubmed: 19742049
J Rehabil Med. 2018 Dec 25;51(1):61-70
pubmed: 30406268
Lancet. 2018 Jun 9;391(10137):2368-2383
pubmed: 29573872
Spine J. 2014 Jul 1;14(7):1106-16
pubmed: 24139233
Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):390-6
pubmed: 24968999
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013 May;56(5-6):765-71
pubmed: 23703496
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2018 Nov;137-138:62-68
pubmed: 30415830