IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v7y1998i1p39-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health economic assessment of behavioural rehabilitation in chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial

Author

Listed:
  • Mariëlle E.J.B. Goossens
  • Maureen P.M.H. Rutten‐Van Mölken
  • Ank M.J. Kole‐Snijders
  • Johan W.S. Vlaeyen
  • Gerard Van Breukelen
  • Reiner Leidl

Abstract

The aim of this cost‐effectiveness study was to compare a combined operant programme plus cognitive/relaxation programme with an operant programme plus attention‐control and to compare both programmes with a waiting‐list control group and with operant rehabilitation provided, as usual, by the same rehabilitation centre. One hundred and forty eight patients with chronic low back pain were randomly assigned to the different conditions. The economic endpoints were the costs of the programme and other health care utilisation, costs for the patient, and indirect costs associated with production losses due to low back pain. The effects were measured in terms of global assessment of change and utilities, using rating scale and standard gamble methods. The 3‐year study determined that adding a cognitive component to an operant treatment did not lead to significant differences in costs and improvement in quality of life when compared with the operant treatment alone. Compared with the common individual rehabilitation therapy it can be concluded that the same effects can be reached at the same or lower costs with a shorter, more intense standardised group programme. The operant treatment alone is more effective than providing no treatment in the waiting‐list control group. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariëlle E.J.B. Goossens & Maureen P.M.H. Rutten‐Van Mölken & Ank M.J. Kole‐Snijders & Johan W.S. Vlaeyen & Gerard Van Breukelen & Reiner Leidl, 1998. "Health economic assessment of behavioural rehabilitation in chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 39-51, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:1:p:39-51
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199802)7:1<39::AID-HEC323>3.0.CO;2-S
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199802)7:13.0.CO;2-S
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199802)7:1<39::AID-HEC323>3.0.CO;2-S?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Leighton Read & Robert J. Quinn & Donald M. Berwick & Harvey V. Fineberg & Milton C. Weinstein, 1984. "Preferences for Health Outcomes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 4(3), pages 315-329, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arndt R. Reichert & Boris Augurzky & Harald Tauchmann, 2015. "Self‐Perceived Job Insecurity And The Demand For Medical Rehabilitation: Does Fear Of Unemployment Reduce Health Care Utilization?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 8-25, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Holger J. Schünemann & Lauren Griffith & David Stubbing & Roger Goldstein & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2003. "A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Measurement Properties of 2 Direct Preference Instruments Administered with and without Hypothetical Marker States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(2), pages 140-149, March.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon & Stefan A. Lipman, 2020. "A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 465-473, April.
    3. Levy, Moshe & Nir, Adi Rizansky, 2012. "The utility of health and wealth," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 379-392.
    4. Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Harmanna van Dalen & Mary-Alison Durand & Jenny Morris & Alan Williams, 1993. "Comparing scaling methods for health state valuations - Rosser revisited," Working Papers 107chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Suzanne Robinson, 2011. "Test–retest reliability of health state valuation techniques: the time trade off and person trade off," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1391, November.
    6. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    7. Alan Shiell & Lisa Gold, 2003. "If the price is right: vagueness and values clarification in contingent valuation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(11), pages 909-919, November.
    8. Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George & Scanlon, Dennis & Kamlet, Mark, 1998. "Value measurement in cost-utility analysis: explaining the discrepancy between rating scale and person trade-off elicitations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 33-44, January.
    9. Paul Dolan & Claire Gudex & Paul Kind & Alan Williams, 1996. "The time trade‐off method: Results from a general population study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 141-154, March.
    10. Dolan, P. & Gudex, C. & Kind, P. & Williams, A., 1996. "Valuing health states: A comparison of methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 209-231, April.
    11. Joshua A. Salomon & Christopher J.L. Murray, 2004. "A multi‐method approach to measuring health‐state valuations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 281-290, March.
    12. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    13. Raisa B. Deber & Vivek Goel, 1990. "Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 181-194, August.
    14. Lipman, Stefan A. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Attema, Arthur E., 2020. "Living up to expectations: Experimental tests of subjective life expectancy as reference point in time trade-off and standard gamble," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Trude Arnesen & Mari Trommald, 2005. "Are QALYs based on time trade‐off comparable? – A systematic review of TTO methodologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 39-53, January.
    16. Rachel Baker & Angela Robinson, 2004. "Responses to standard gambles: are preferences ‘well constructed’?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 37-48, January.
    17. Nadine Steckling & Brecht Devleesschauwer & Julia Winkelnkemper & Florian Fischer & Bret Ericson & Alexander Krämer & Claudia Hornberg & Richard Fuller & Dietrich Plass & Stephan Bose-O’Reilly, 2017. "Disability Weights for Chronic Mercury Intoxication Resulting from Gold Mining Activities: Results from an Online Pairwise Comparisons Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, January.
    18. G. Ardine De Wit & Jan J.V. Busschbach & Frank Th. De Charro, 2000. "Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 109-126, March.
    19. Claire Gudex & Paul Dolan, 1995. "Valuing health states: the effect of duration," Working Papers 143chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    20. Peter E. Krumins & Stephan D. Fihn & Daniel L. Kent, 1988. "Symptom Severity and Patients' Values in the Decision to Perform a Transurethral Resection of the Prostate," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:7:y:1998:i:1:p:39-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.