Cost-effectiveness of an integrated’fast track’ rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands

11Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Multidisciplinary rehabilitation has been recommended for multi-trauma patients, but there is only low-quality evidence to support its use with these patients. This study examined whether a Supported Fast track multi-Trauma Rehabilitation Service (Fast Track) was cost-effective compared to conventional trauma rehabilitation service (Care As Usual) in patients with multi-trauma from a societal perspective with a one-year follow-up. Methods An economic evaluation alongside a prospective, multi-center, non-randomized, controlled clinical study, was conducted in the Netherlands. The primary outcome measure was the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Generic Quality of Life and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) of the patients were derived using the Short-form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were stated in terms of costs per unit of FIM improvement and costs per QALY. To investigate the uncertainty around the ICERs, non-parametric bootstrapping was used. Results In total, 132 patients participated, 65 Fast Track patients and 67 Care As Usual patients. Mean total costs per person were €18,918 higher in the Fast Track group than in the Care As Usual group. Average incremental effects on the FIM were 3.7 points (in favor of the Fast Track group) and the incremental (extra) bootstrapped costs were €19,033, resulting in an ICER for cost per FIM improvement of €5,177. Care As Usual dominated Fast Track in cost per QALY as it gave both higher QALYs and lower costs. All sensitivity analyses attested to the robustness of our results. Conclusions This study demonstrated that a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for multi-trauma patients according to the supported fast track principle is promising but cost-effectiveness evidence remains inconclusive. In terms of functional outcome, Fast Track was more expensive but yielded also more effects compared to the Care As Usual group. Looking at the costs per QALYs, unfavorable ICERs were found. Given the lack of a willingness-to-pay threshold for functional recovery and the relatively short time horizon, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the first.

References Powered by Scopus

Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care

3787Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36

2500Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease

888Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Evaluation of Fast-Track Implementation on Emergency Department: A Literature Review

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Implementation of early rehabilitation for critically ill children in China: A survey and narrative review of the literature

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Value of Nonpharmacological Interventions for People With an Acquired Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wijnen, B. F. M., Hemmen, B., Bouman, A. I. E., Van De Meent, H., Ambergen, T., Brink, P. R. G., … Evers, S. M. A. A. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of an integrated’fast track’ rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands. PLoS ONE, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213980

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 16

64%

Researcher 5

20%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 9

36%

Nursing and Health Professions 8

32%

Psychology 5

20%

Engineering 3

12%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free