Prospective pilot evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-utility of a 'health first' case management service for long-term Incapacity Benefit recipients

18Citations
Citations of this article
98Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: In line with the NICE guidance, an NHS-commissioned case management intervention was provided for individuals receiving Incapacity Benefit payments for ≥3 years in the North East of England. The intervention aimed to improve the health of the participants. Methods: A total of 131 participants receiving the intervention were compared over 9 months with a (non-equivalent) comparison group of 229 receiving Incapacity Benefit payments and usual care. Health was measured using EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, SF-8, HADS and the Nordic Musculoskeletal questionnaire. Socio-demographic and health behaviour data were also collected. Fixed-effects linear models with correlated errors were used to compare health changes between groups over time. A preliminary cost-utility analysis was also conducted. Results: The comparison group measures of health were stable over time. Starting from comparatively poor initial levels, case-management group generic (EQ5D, EQ-VAS) and mental health (HADS-A, HADS-D and SF8-MCS) measures improved within 6 months to similar levels found in the comparison group. Musculoskeletal (Nordic 2) and health behaviours did not improve. Tentative estimates of cost-utility suggest an intervention cost in the region of £16 700-£23 500 per QALY. Conclusions: Case management interventions may improve the health of Incapacity Benefit recipients. Further research is required to help confirm these pilot findings. © The Author 2013.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Warren, J., Bambra, C., Kasim, A., Garthwaite, K., Mason, J., & Booth, M. (2014). Prospective pilot evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-utility of a “health first” case management service for long-term Incapacity Benefit recipients. Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), 36(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fds100

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free