Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Cost–utility analysis of osteopathy in primary care: results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Cost–utility analysis of osteopathy in primary care: results from a pragmatic randomized... Background. Spinal pain is common and costly to health services and society. Management guidelines have encouraged primary care referral for spinal manipulation, but the evidence base is weak. More economic evaluations alongside pragmatic trials have been recommended.Objective. Our aim was to assess the cost–utility of a practice-based osteopathy clinic for subacute spinal pain.Methods. A cost–utility analysis was performed alongside a pragmatic single-centre randomized controlled trial in a primary care osteopathy clinic accepting referrals from 14 neighbouring practices in North West Wales. Patients with back pain of 2–12 weeks duration were randomly allocated to treatment with osteopathy plus usual GP care or usual GP care alone. Costs were measured from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. All primary and secondary health care interventions recorded in GP notes were collected for the study period. We calculated quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains based on EQ-5D responses from patients in the trial, and then cost per QALY ratios. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping.Results. Osteopathy plus usual GP care was more effective but resulted in more health care costs than usual GP care alone. The point estimate of the incremental cost per QALY ratio was £3560 (80% CI £542–£77 100). Sensitivity analysis examining spine-related costs alone and total costs excluding outliers resulted in lower cost per QALY ratios.Conclusion. A primary care osteopathy clinic may be a cost-effective addition to usual GP care, but this conclusion was subject to considerable random error. Rigorous multi-centre studies are needed to assess the generalizability of this approach. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Family Practice Oxford University Press

Cost–utility analysis of osteopathy in primary care: results from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/cost-utility-analysis-of-osteopathy-in-primary-care-results-from-a-W6CXYmhSpX

References (28)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Family Practice Vol. 21, No. 6 © Oxford University Press 2004, all rights reserved.
ISSN
0263-2136
eISSN
1460-2229
DOI
10.1093/fampra/cmh612
pmid
15531626
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Background. Spinal pain is common and costly to health services and society. Management guidelines have encouraged primary care referral for spinal manipulation, but the evidence base is weak. More economic evaluations alongside pragmatic trials have been recommended.Objective. Our aim was to assess the cost–utility of a practice-based osteopathy clinic for subacute spinal pain.Methods. A cost–utility analysis was performed alongside a pragmatic single-centre randomized controlled trial in a primary care osteopathy clinic accepting referrals from 14 neighbouring practices in North West Wales. Patients with back pain of 2–12 weeks duration were randomly allocated to treatment with osteopathy plus usual GP care or usual GP care alone. Costs were measured from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. All primary and secondary health care interventions recorded in GP notes were collected for the study period. We calculated quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains based on EQ-5D responses from patients in the trial, and then cost per QALY ratios. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping.Results. Osteopathy plus usual GP care was more effective but resulted in more health care costs than usual GP care alone. The point estimate of the incremental cost per QALY ratio was £3560 (80% CI £542–£77 100). Sensitivity analysis examining spine-related costs alone and total costs excluding outliers resulted in lower cost per QALY ratios.Conclusion. A primary care osteopathy clinic may be a cost-effective addition to usual GP care, but this conclusion was subject to considerable random error. Rigorous multi-centre studies are needed to assess the generalizability of this approach.

Journal

Family PracticeOxford University Press

Published: Dec 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.