Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-zczlx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-10T02:40:22.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Randomized trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: Cost-effectiveness analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Andrea Manca ,
David M. Epstein ,
David J. Torgerson ,
Jennifer A. Klaber Moffett ,
Simon Coulton ,
Amanda J. Farrin ,
Seokyung Hahn ,
David A. Jackson  and
Stewart J. Richmond
Andrea Manca
Affiliation:
University of York
David M. Epstein
Affiliation:
University of York
David J. Torgerson
Affiliation:
University of York
Jennifer A. Klaber Moffett
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Simon Coulton
Affiliation:
University of York
Amanda J. Farrin
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Seokyung Hahn
Affiliation:
Seoul National University College of Medicine
David A. Jackson
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Stewart J. Richmond
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of brief physiotherapy intervention versus usual physiotherapy management in patients with neck pain of musculoskeletal origin in the community setting.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial. Individuals 18 years of age and older with neck pain of more than 2 weeks were recruited from physiotherapy departments with referrals from general practitioners (GPs) in the East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire regions in the United Kingdom. A total of 139 patients were allocated to the brief intervention, and 129 to the usual physiotherapy. Resource use data were prospectively collected on the number of physiotherapy sessions, hospital stay, specialist, and GP visits. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using EQ-5D data collected at baseline, 3 and 12 months from the start of the treatment. The economic evaluation was conducted from the U.K. National Health System perspective.

Results: On average, brief intervention produced lower costs (£−68; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], £−103 to £−35) and marginally lower QALYs (−0.001; 95 percent CI, −0.030 to 0.028) compared with usual physiotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY of £68,000 for usual physiotherapy. These results are sensitive to patients' treatment preferences.

Conclusions: Usual physiotherapy may not be good value for money for the average individual in this trial but could be a cost-effective strategy for those who are indifferent toward which treatment they receive.

Keywords

Neck-pain physical therapyRandomized controlled trialEconomicsQuality of lifeCost-effectiveness analysis

Information

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 67 - 75
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barber JA, Thompson SG. 2000 Analysis of cost data in randomised trials: An application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med. 19: 3219– 3236.Google Scholar
Breen AC. 1996 Volumes and fees in UK chiropractic practice. Eur J Chiropractic. 44: 23– 26.Google Scholar
2003. BNF. British National Formulary (BNF). London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain;
2003. Department of Health. Reference cost 2001/2002. London: Department of Health;
Dolan P. 1997 Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 35: 1095– 1108.Google Scholar
Efron B, Tibshirani R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall;
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. 2001 Representing uncertainty: The role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ. 10: 779– 789.Google Scholar
Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan A. 2002 Something old, something new, something borrowed, something BLUE: A framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 11: 415– 430.Google Scholar
Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: An index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. 1996. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven;
Klaber Moffett JA, Jackson DA, Richmond S, et al. 2005 Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: Outcomes and patient preference. Br Med J. 330: 75– 80.Google Scholar
Klaber Moffett JA, Torgerson DJ, Bell-Syer SB, et al. 1999 Randomised controlled trial of exercise for low back pain: Clinical outcomes, costs, and preferences. Br Med J. 319: 279– 283.Google Scholar
Korthals-de Bos IB, Hoving JL, van Tulder MW, et al. 2003 Cost effectiveness of physiotherapy, manual therapy, and general practitioner care for neck pain: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 326: 911.Google Scholar
Lin DY, Feuer EJ, Etzioni R. 1997 Estimating medical costs from incomplete follow-up data. Biometrics. 53: 419– 434.Google Scholar
Lydick E, Epstein RS, Himmelberger D, White CJ. 1995 Area under the curve: A metric for patient subjective responses in episodic diseases. Qual Life Res. 4: 41– 45.Google Scholar
Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. 2005 Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 14: 487– 496.Google Scholar
Matthews JNS, Altman D, Campbell M. 1990 Analysis of serial measurements in medical research. Br Med J. 300: 230– 235.Google Scholar
Mullner M. 2003 Commentary: Bootstrapping simplifies appreciation of statistical inferences. Br Med J. 326: 917.Google Scholar
Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. 2002. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent;
NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; April 2004.
ONS. 2002. New earnings survey: Average gross weakly earnings by area. London: Office of National Statistics;
Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. 2002 Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: Current practice and problems. Stat Med. 21: 2917– 2930.Google Scholar
Raftery J. 2001 NICE: Faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Br Med J. 323: 1300– 1303.Google Scholar
Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Oberg BE. 1998 One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain:subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization. Spine. 23: 1875– 1883.Google Scholar
StataCorp. 1999. Stata statistical software. Version 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation;
Thomas E, Croft PR, Paterson SM, Dziedzic K, Hay EM. 2004 What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain. Br J Gen Pract. 54: 93– 96.Google Scholar
Torgerson DJ, Sibbald B. 1998; Understanding controlled trials: What is a patient preference trial? Br Med J. 316: 360.Google Scholar
Torgerson DJ, Raftery J. 1999 Economic Note: Outcomes. Br Med J. 318: 1413.Google Scholar
Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS. 1994 Costs, effects and c/e-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ. 3: 309– 319.Google Scholar