BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2022
Cost-effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison with care-as-usual in Dutch general practice: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months.
СтатьяPragmatic Clinical TrialРандомизированное исследованиеEquivalence TrialНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Loohuis Anne M M, Van Der Worp Henk, Wessels Nienke J, Dekker Janny H, Slieker-Ten Hove Marijke C Ph, Berger Marjolein Y, Vermeulen Karin M, Blanker Marco H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared with care-as-usual in Dutch primary care.
DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.
SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months.
POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment.
METHODS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g. reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on incontinence impact adjusted life years (IIALYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (medical consumption and productivity cost questionnaires).
RESULTS: In all, 262 women were andomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up, respectively. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with € -161 (95% confidence interval [CI -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: -€3696) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR: €6379).
CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: App-treatment for female urinary incontinence cost-effective compared to care-as-usual in general practice after 12 months.
DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.
SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months.
POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment.
METHODS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g. reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on incontinence impact adjusted life years (IIALYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (medical consumption and productivity cost questionnaires).
RESULTS: In all, 262 women were andomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up, respectively. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with € -161 (95% confidence interval [CI -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER: -€3696) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR: €6379).
CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: App-treatment for female urinary incontinence cost-effective compared to care-as-usual in general practice after 12 months.