IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v26y2025i5d10.1007_s10198-024-01734-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a nurse-led, transitional care model to improve care coordination for patients with cardiovascular diseases: results from the “Cardiolotse” study

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Coors

    (Technical University of Munich
    Munich Center for Health Economics and Policy)

  • Wiebke Schüttig

    (Technical University of Munich
    Munich Center for Health Economics and Policy)

  • Katrin C. Reber

    (Health Services Management)

  • Harald Darius

    (Vivantes–Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH)

  • Alfred Holzgreve

    (Vivantes–Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH)

  • Sebastian Karmann

    (Vivantes–Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH)

  • Anica Stürtz

    (Health Services Management)

  • Rebecca Zöller

    (Health Services Management)

  • Saskia Kropp

    (Technical University of Munich
    Munich Center for Health Economics and Policy)

  • Petra Riesner

    (Health Services Management)

  • Leonie Sundmacher

    (Technical University of Munich
    Munich Center for Health Economics and Policy)

Abstract

Objective To assess the 12-month cost-effectiveness of the nurse-led transitional care program “Cardiolotse” (CL) for patients with cardiovascular diseases compared to usual care (UC). Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were conducted from the perspective of statutory health insurance (SHI), covering a time horizon of 12 months. Analyzed outcomes included the number of rehospitalizations and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs comprised program costs and the utilization of healthcare resources. Point estimates are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to illustrate uncertainty and provide insights into the impact mechanisms of the CL program. Results The study population consisted of 2550 patients, with 1256 allocated to the intervention group and 1294 to the control group. Patients who received support from CLs experienced fewer rehospitalizations and lower inpatient costs from an SHI perspective, compared to the UC group. HRQoL assessments indicated higher utility values for CL patients at the 12-month follow-up. Total program costs amounted to €1454.65 per patient. The CEA and CUA demonstrate that the CL program is dominant compared to UC from the SHI perspective. Conclusion Our study shows that the CL program not only reduces the number of rehospitalizations and costs but increases HRQoL, resulting in a dominant ICER and ICUR. Further research is necessary to evaluate longer periods of time, different levels of care intensity, and perspectives of different healthcare stakeholders. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020424, 2020-06-18, retrospectively registered.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie Coors & Wiebke Schüttig & Katrin C. Reber & Harald Darius & Alfred Holzgreve & Sebastian Karmann & Anica Stürtz & Rebecca Zöller & Saskia Kropp & Petra Riesner & Leonie Sundmacher, 2025. "Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a nurse-led, transitional care model to improve care coordination for patients with cardiovascular diseases: results from the “Cardiolotse” study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(5), pages 697-710, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01734-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01734-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-024-01734-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-024-01734-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastian Himmler & Jannis Stöckel & Job van Exel & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2021. "The value of health—Empirical issues when estimating the monetary value of a quality‐adjusted life year based on well‐being data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(8), pages 1849-1870, August.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    3. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ansam Barakat & Jurgen E. Cornelis & Jack J. M. Dekker & Nick M. Lommerse & Aartjan T. F. Beekman & Matthijs Blankers, 2025. "Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(1), pages 23-34, February.
    2. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    3. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Andrea Gabrio & Catrin Plumpton & Sube Banerjee & Baptiste Leurent, 2022. "Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial‐based economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1276-1287, June.
    5. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    6. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    7. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    9. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    11. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    12. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    14. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    15. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    16. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    18. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    19. repec:plo:pone00:0151073 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    21. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:spr:eujhec:v:26:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s10198-024-01734-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.