May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Economic evaluation of group CBT versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by hixxy, Feb 12, 2017.

  1. hixxy

    hixxy Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes:
    1,304
    Australia
    Long-term economic evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatment versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes.
    Schröder A, Ørnbøl E, Jensen JS, Sharpe M, Fink P.

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE:
    Patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome have a poor outcome and can incur high healthcare and societal costs. We aimed to compare the medium-term (16months) cost-effectiveness and the long-term (40months) economic outcomes of a bespoke cognitive-behavioural group treatment (STreSS) with that of enhanced usual care (EUC).

    METHODS:
    We obtained complete data on healthcare and indirect costs (i.e. labour marked-related and health-related benefits) from public registries for 120 participants from a randomised controlled trial. Costs were calculated as per capita public expenses in 2010 €. QALYs gained were estimated from the SF-6D. We conducted a medium-term cost-effectiveness analysis and a long-term cost-minimization analysis from both a healthcare (i.e. direct cost) and a societal (i.e. total cost) perspective.

    RESULTS:
    In the medium term, the probability that STreSS was cost-effective at thresholds of 25,000 to 35,000 € per QALY was 93-95% from a healthcare perspective, but only 50-55% from a societal perspective. In the long term, however, STreSS was associated with increasing savings in indirect costs, mainly due to a greater number of patients self-supporting. When combined with stable long-term reductions in healthcare expenditures, there were total cost savings of 7184 € (95% CI 2271 to 12,096, p=0.004) during the third year after treatment.

    CONCLUSION:
    STreSS treatment costs an average of 1545 €. This cost was more than offset by subsequent savings in direct and indirect costs. Implementation could both improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.

    Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

    KEYWORDS:
    Bodily distress syndrome; Chronic fatigue syndrome; Cognitive-behavioural therapy; Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Fibromyalgia; Functional somatic syndromes

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28183406
    http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022-3999(17)30018-1/abstract
     
    TiredSam and AndyPR like this.
  2. Keith Geraghty

    Keith Geraghty Senior Member

    Messages:
    155
    Likes:
    3,290
    the original study was highly flawed and biased - i dont want to waste time assessing this cost-evaluation given its build on the back of the flawed primary study
     
    trishrhymes, Hutan, AndyPR and 7 others like this.
  3. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes:
    23,191
    Soon they will discover an even more cost effective way to deal with the unwanted patients:

    [​IMG]
     
    trishrhymes likes this.
  4. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    The difference in QALYs seemed quite small: 0.035, which just reach statistical significance at p<0.05.

    The QALY for the intervention group went from 0.58 at baseline to 0.6, 0.61 and 0.62 had 4 months, 10 months and 16 months respectively. Those numbers still seem quite low.
    ----


     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
    Valentijn likes this.
  5. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    Note what they did with tax. They didn't have records of the tax the people actually paid. They just assumed they were paying tax if they weren't claiming disability benefits/payments. This seems a big assumption.

    However there was still a difference even if one ignores the tax issue.
     
    Snow Leopard and Valentijn like this.
  6. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    56 % in the treatment group and 62% in the control group were said to have CFS. It is unclear what criteria were used. Michael Sharpe was an author so maybe it was the Oxford criteria.

    There was no subgroup analyses for different illnesses.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
    Valentijn likes this.
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
  8. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    This wasn't done in the PACE Trial.
     
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    The main results are in tables 2a and 2b which could be read without reading the paper. Tables 3 and 4 also have outcome data but they are a bit more abstract.
     
  10. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,676
    Likes:
    28,192
    I do wonder whether an intervention like this could cause people either to:
    (i) blame themselves for not getting better;
    (ii) not see themselves as ill when they really are/see themselves as recovered when they are not;
    (iii) lose confidence in the health and/or medical profession.

    This might potentially cause people to be less inclined to claim disability payments as they might feel they are not worthy or they might feel no one would support them getting a claim.

    Also they might go to medical and health professionals less often as they feel they can just get themselves better (other symptoms are just normal) or alternatively have given up on the current system helping them.

    This makes me wonder whether for example one can assume people not claiming disability payments are definitely working.
     
    mango, Valentijn and Zombie_Lurker like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page