Exploring the cost-utility of stratified primary care management for low back pain compared with current best practice within risk-defined subgroups

David G T Whitehurst, Stirling Bryan, Martyn Lewis, Jonathan Hill, Elaine M Hay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives Stratified management for low back pain according to patients' prognosis and matched care pathways has been shown to be an effective treatment approach in primary care. The aim of this within-trial study was to determine the economic implications of providing such an intervention, compared with non-stratified current best practice, within specific risk-defined subgroups (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk).

Methods Within a cost-utility framework, the base-case analysis estimated the incremental healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using the EQ-5D to generate QALYs, for each risk-defined subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were performed to consider alternative costing methodologies, including the assessment of societal loss relating to work absence and the incorporation of generic (ie, non-back pain) healthcare utilisation.

Results The stratified management approach was a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with current best practice within each risk-defined subgroup, exhibiting dominance (greater benefit and lower costs) for medium-risk patients and acceptable incremental cost to utility ratios for low-risk and high-risk patients. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources exceeds 90% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 4000 pound (approximate to 4500; $6500) per additional QALY for the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Patients receiving stratified care also reported fewer back pain-related days off work in all three subgroups.

Conclusions Compared with current best practice, stratified primary care management for low back pain provides a highly cost-effective use of resources across all risk-defined subgroups.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1796-1802
Number of pages7
JournalAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases
Volume71
Issue number11
Early online date4 Apr 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2012

Keywords

  • randomized clinical-trial
  • physical treatments
  • economic-evaluation
  • targeted treatment
  • start back
  • exercise
  • UK
  • technologies
  • therapy
  • program

Cite this

Exploring the cost-utility of stratified primary care management for low back pain compared with current best practice within risk-defined subgroups. / Whitehurst, David G T; Bryan, Stirling; Lewis, Martyn; Hill, Jonathan; Hay, Elaine M.

In: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 71, No. 11, 11.2012, p. 1796-1802.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aaf32fa290c9450694fff725e691c667,
title = "Exploring the cost-utility of stratified primary care management for low back pain compared with current best practice within risk-defined subgroups",
abstract = "Objectives Stratified management for low back pain according to patients' prognosis and matched care pathways has been shown to be an effective treatment approach in primary care. The aim of this within-trial study was to determine the economic implications of providing such an intervention, compared with non-stratified current best practice, within specific risk-defined subgroups (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk).Methods Within a cost-utility framework, the base-case analysis estimated the incremental healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using the EQ-5D to generate QALYs, for each risk-defined subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were performed to consider alternative costing methodologies, including the assessment of societal loss relating to work absence and the incorporation of generic (ie, non-back pain) healthcare utilisation.Results The stratified management approach was a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with current best practice within each risk-defined subgroup, exhibiting dominance (greater benefit and lower costs) for medium-risk patients and acceptable incremental cost to utility ratios for low-risk and high-risk patients. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources exceeds 90{\%} at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 4000 pound (approximate to 4500; $6500) per additional QALY for the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Patients receiving stratified care also reported fewer back pain-related days off work in all three subgroups.Conclusions Compared with current best practice, stratified primary care management for low back pain provides a highly cost-effective use of resources across all risk-defined subgroups.",
keywords = "randomized clinical-trial, physical treatments, economic-evaluation, targeted treatment, start back, exercise, UK, technologies, therapy, program",
author = "Whitehurst, {David G T} and Stirling Bryan and Martyn Lewis and Jonathan Hill and Hay, {Elaine M}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200731",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "1796--1802",
journal = "Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases",
issn = "0003-4967",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring the cost-utility of stratified primary care management for low back pain compared with current best practice within risk-defined subgroups

AU - Whitehurst, David G T

AU - Bryan, Stirling

AU - Lewis, Martyn

AU - Hill, Jonathan

AU - Hay, Elaine M

PY - 2012/11

Y1 - 2012/11

N2 - Objectives Stratified management for low back pain according to patients' prognosis and matched care pathways has been shown to be an effective treatment approach in primary care. The aim of this within-trial study was to determine the economic implications of providing such an intervention, compared with non-stratified current best practice, within specific risk-defined subgroups (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk).Methods Within a cost-utility framework, the base-case analysis estimated the incremental healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using the EQ-5D to generate QALYs, for each risk-defined subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were performed to consider alternative costing methodologies, including the assessment of societal loss relating to work absence and the incorporation of generic (ie, non-back pain) healthcare utilisation.Results The stratified management approach was a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with current best practice within each risk-defined subgroup, exhibiting dominance (greater benefit and lower costs) for medium-risk patients and acceptable incremental cost to utility ratios for low-risk and high-risk patients. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources exceeds 90% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 4000 pound (approximate to 4500; $6500) per additional QALY for the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Patients receiving stratified care also reported fewer back pain-related days off work in all three subgroups.Conclusions Compared with current best practice, stratified primary care management for low back pain provides a highly cost-effective use of resources across all risk-defined subgroups.

AB - Objectives Stratified management for low back pain according to patients' prognosis and matched care pathways has been shown to be an effective treatment approach in primary care. The aim of this within-trial study was to determine the economic implications of providing such an intervention, compared with non-stratified current best practice, within specific risk-defined subgroups (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk).Methods Within a cost-utility framework, the base-case analysis estimated the incremental healthcare cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY), using the EQ-5D to generate QALYs, for each risk-defined subgroup. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses were performed to consider alternative costing methodologies, including the assessment of societal loss relating to work absence and the incorporation of generic (ie, non-back pain) healthcare utilisation.Results The stratified management approach was a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with current best practice within each risk-defined subgroup, exhibiting dominance (greater benefit and lower costs) for medium-risk patients and acceptable incremental cost to utility ratios for low-risk and high-risk patients. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources exceeds 90% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of 4000 pound (approximate to 4500; $6500) per additional QALY for the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Patients receiving stratified care also reported fewer back pain-related days off work in all three subgroups.Conclusions Compared with current best practice, stratified primary care management for low back pain provides a highly cost-effective use of resources across all risk-defined subgroups.

KW - randomized clinical-trial

KW - physical treatments

KW - economic-evaluation

KW - targeted treatment

KW - start back

KW - exercise

KW - UK

KW - technologies

KW - therapy

KW - program

U2 - 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200731

DO - 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200731

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 1796

EP - 1802

JO - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

JF - Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases

SN - 0003-4967

IS - 11

ER -