IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v6y2016i1d10.1186_s13561-016-0092-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Egil Kjerstad

    (Uni Research Rokkan Centre)

  • Hanne Kristin Tuntland

    (Bergen University College)

Abstract

Background In the face of a growing number of older adults in the population, policy-makers in high-income countries are seeking new ways to reduce the expected growth in long-term care expenditure. Research shows that disability is an important determinant of long-term care utilization. In this context, reablement has received increased attention. Reablement is a form of home-based rehabilitation, which focuses on improving independent functioning in daily activities perceived as important by the older adult. Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reablement. Methods The economic evaluation is based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which all participants were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 9 months. The intervention group participated in reablement, while the control group received usual care. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to measure self-perceived activity performance and satisfaction with performance. Cost data were based on daily registrations of usage of home-based care personnel during a period of 9 months. Results Reablement was found to be more cost-effective than usual care. The assessments of performance and satisfaction regarding daily activities were significantly higher in the reablement group compared with the control group and this was achieved at lower cost. Importantly too, in the post-trial period, the intervention group requested significantly fewer home visits which were, on average, of significantly shorter duration compared with the control group. Expenditure on home visits was significantly lower for the reablement group. Conclusions Reablement is a more cost-effective intervention compared with usual care. Reablement has a potentially large effect on the demand for compensating home-based care services. Policy-makers should therefore consider implementing reablement on a larger scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Egil Kjerstad & Hanne Kristin Tuntland, 2016. "Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:6:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-016-0092-8
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-016-0092-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-016-0092-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-016-0092-8?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. Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252, May.
    2. Ben A. Van Hout & Maiwenn J. Al & Gilad S. Gordon & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "Costs, effects and C/E‐ratios alongside a clinical trial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(5), pages 309-319, September.
    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. Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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. Yingyan Ma & Xiaohua Ying & Haidong Zou & Xiaocheng Xu & Haiyun Liu & Lin Bai & Xun Xu & Xi Zhang, 2014. "Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Surgery in Elderly People over 70 Years Old: Visual Acuity, Quality of Life, and Cost-Utility Values," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-8, October.
    2. Kobelt, G., 2013. "Health Economics: An Introduction to Economic Evaluation," Monographs, Office of Health Economics, number 000004.
    3. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    4. Monica Merito & Patrizio Pezzotti, 2006. "Comparing costs and effectiveness of different starting points for highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 7(1), pages 30-36, March.
    5. Pedram Sendi & Huldrych F Günthard & Mathew Simcock & Bruno Ledergerber & Jörg Schüpbach & Manuel Battegay & for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, 2007. "Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-8, January.
    6. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Dixon, Huw David & Tian, Maoshan, 2022. "The Confidence Interval of Cross-Sectional Distribution of Durations," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2022/15, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    8. Joe Hirschberg & Jenny Lye, 2017. "Alternative Graphical Representations of the Confidence Intervals for the Structural Coefficient from Exactly Identified Two-Stage Least Squares," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2026, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    10. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    11. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    12. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of 'payback' and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357.
    13. Daniel F. Heitjan & Alan J. Moskowitz & William Whang, 1999. "Bayesian estimation of cost‐effectiveness ratios from clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 191-201, May.
    14. Michal Jakubczyk, 2016. "Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty," KAE Working Papers 2016-006, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    15. Laura Bojke & Karl Claxton & Mark J. Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2008. "Identifying Research Priorities: The Value of Information Associated with Repeat Screening for Age-Related Macular Degeneration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(1), pages 33-43, January.
    16. Ernst, Richard, 2017. "Theories of Health Care Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," SocArXiv gjbcp, Center for Open Science.
    17. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    18. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Shuai Chen & Heejung Bang & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2024. "A Tutorial on Net Benefit Regression for Real-World Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Censored Data from Randomized or Observational Studies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(3), pages 239-251, April.
    20. Andrew Briggs, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 50, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:hecrev:v:6:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-016-0092-8. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.