IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0320649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multi-center trial-based economic evaluation of the SELF-program: A function-focused care program for nursing staff providing long-term care for geriatric clients in nursing homes compared to care as usual

Author

Listed:
  • Ruben MWA Drost
  • Ghislaine APG van Mastrigt
  • Stan Vluggen
  • Silke F Metzelthin
  • Michel HC Bleijlevens
  • Getty Huisman-de Waal
  • Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel
  • Sandra MG Zwakhalen

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the SElf-reliance, autonomy, Life quality, and Functionality-program (SELF) for nursing staff in nursing homes who provide long-term care to geriatric clients as compared to care as usual from a societal perspective. Methods: The economic evaluation ran parallel to a two-arm multicenter cluster-randomized trial, in which the nursing staff in the intervention group received the SELF-program, and nursing staff in the control group received no program and delivered care as usual. Outcomes and societal costs for clients who received care from nursing staff were measured using questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The main measures included Activities of Daily Living, as measured with the GARS-4, utility scores as measured with the EQ-5D-5L, and costs related to the intervention, informal care and health service utilization. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted, calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and healthcare perspectives. Bootstrap analyses were performed, with results displayed on cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Results: In total, 28 wards with a total of 241 clients were randomized (intervention, n = 115; control group, n = 126) From a societal perspective, care delivered in the intervention group led to lower costs than care as usual over the 6-month period, with incremental costs of -€584. In terms of the GARS-4 sum score, the SELF-program resulted in a favorable decrease of 0.81 points, and in terms of QALYs, it resulted in a favorable increase of 0.07. From a healthcare perspective, the incremental costs amounted to €556, with ratios of €410 per point reduction on the GARS-4 and €8,356 per QALY. Conclusions: The main analysis suggests that over 6 months from a societal perspective for both outcomes, the intervention is cost-effective as compared to care as usual. Trial registration: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: NL9189; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9189

Suggested Citation

  • Ruben MWA Drost & Ghislaine APG van Mastrigt & Stan Vluggen & Silke F Metzelthin & Michel HC Bleijlevens & Getty Huisman-de Waal & Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel & Sandra MG Zwakhalen, 2025. "A multi-center trial-based economic evaluation of the SELF-program: A function-focused care program for nursing staff providing long-term care for geriatric clients in nursing homes compared to care a," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0320649
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320649
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0320649&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0320649?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
    ---><---

    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:plo:pone00:0320649. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.