Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-21T22:01:33.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of a graded exercise therapy program for patients with chronic shoulder complaints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Jacques J. X. R. Geraets ,
Mariëlle E. J. B. Goossens ,
Camiel P. C. de Bruijn ,
Imelda J. M. de Groot ,
Albère J. S. Köke ,
Rob A. G. B. Pelt ,
Geert van der Heijden ,
Geert-Jan Dinant  and
Wim J. A. van den Heuvel
Jacques J. X. R. Geraets
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Mariëlle E. J. B. Goossens
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Camiel P. C. de Bruijn
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Imelda J. M. de Groot
Affiliation:
University Medical Centre de Radboud and Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Albère J. S. Köke
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Center for Clinical Rehabilitation
Rob A. G. B. Pelt
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Rehabilitation
Geert van der Heijden
Affiliation:
Utrecht University and University Medical Center Utrecht
Geert-Jan Dinant
Affiliation:
Maastricht University
Wim J. A. van den Heuvel
Affiliation:
Maastricht University and Institute for Rehabilitation Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a behavioral graded exercise therapy (GET) program compared with usual care (UC) in terms of the performance of daily activities by patients with chronic shoulder complaints in primary care.

Methods: A total of 176 patients were randomly assigned either to GET (n=87) or to UC (n=89). Clinical outcomes (main complaints, shoulder disability [SDQ] and generic health-related quality of life [EQ-5D], and costs [intervention costs, direct health care costs, direct non–health-related costs, and indirect costs]) were assessed during the 12-week treatment period and at 52 weeks of follow-up.

Results: Results showed that GET was more effective than UC in restoring daily activities as assessed by the main complaints instrument after the 12-week treatment period (p=.049; mean difference, 7.5; confidence interval [CI], 0.0–15.0). These effects lasted for at least 52 weeks (p=.025; mean difference 9.2; CI, 1.2–17.3). No statistically significant differences were found on the SDQ or EQ5D. GET significantly reduced direct health care costs (p=.000) and direct non–health care costs (p=.029). Nevertheless, total costs during the 1-year follow-up period were significantly higher (p=.001; GET=€530 versus UC=€377) due to the higher costs of the intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the main complaints (0–100), SDQ (0–100), and EQ-5D (−1.0–1.0) were €17, €74, and €5,278 per unit of improvement, respectively.

Conclusions: GET proved to be more effective in the short- and long-term and reduces direct health care costs and direct non–health care costs but is associated with higher costs of the intervention itself.

Keywords

Cost-benefit analysisShoulderBehavior therapyRandomized controlled trials
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 76 - 83
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergman GJD, van Tulder MW, Winters JC, et al. 2004: In: Bergman GJD, ed. Manipulative therapy for shoulder complaints in general practice. Groningen: Stichting Drukkerij C. Regenboog; 63– 77.
Beurskens AJ, de Vet HCW, Köke AJ, et al. 1999 A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 22: 144– 183.Google Scholar
Brooks R. 1996 EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy. 37: 53– 72.Google Scholar
Campbell MK, Torgerson DJ. 1999 Bootstrapping: Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. QJM. 92: 177– 182.Google Scholar
Geraets JJ, Goossens ME, de Bruijn CP, et al. 2004 A behavioural treatment for chronic shoulder complaints: Concepts, development, and study design. Aust J Physiother. 50: 33– 38.Google Scholar
Geraets JJ, Goossens ME, de Groot IJ, et al. 2005 Effectiveness of a graded exercise therapy program for patients with chronic shoulder complaints. Aust J Physiother. 51: 87– 94.Google Scholar
Geraets JJ, Goossens ME, van Haastregt J, et al. Implications of process evaluation for clinical effectiveness and clinical practice in a trial on chronic shoulder complaints. Pat Educ Couns. In press.
Goossens ME, Evers SMAA. 1997 Economic evaluation in back pain interventions. J Occup Rehabil. 7: 15– 32.Google Scholar
Goossens ME, Rutten van Molken MP, Vlaeyen JW, et al. 2000 The cost diary: A method to measure direct and indirect costs in cost-effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 53: 688– 695.Google Scholar
Guzmán J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, et al. 2001 Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Systematic review. Br Med J. 322: 511– 516.Google Scholar
van der Heijden GJMG, Leffers P, Bouter LM. 2000 Shoulder disability questionnaire design and responsiveness of a functional status measure. J Clin Epidemiol. 53: 29– 38.Google Scholar
Luime JJ, Koes BW, Henriksen IJ, et al. 2004 Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population: A systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 33: 73– 81.Google Scholar
Meerding WJL, Bonneux L, Polder JJ, et al. 1998 Demographic and epidemiological determinants of healthcare costs in the Netherlands: A cost of illness study. Br Med J. 317: 111– 115.Google Scholar
Morley S, Eccleston C, Williams A. 1999 Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive behaviour therapy and behaviour therapy for chronic pain in adults, excluding headache. Pain. 88: 1– 13.Google Scholar
Nygren A, Berglund A, von Koch M. 1995 Neck and shoulder pain, an increasing problem. Strategies for using insurance material to follow trends. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 32: 107– 112.Google Scholar
O'Brien BJ, Brigg AH. 2002 Analysis of uncertainty in health care cost-effectiveness studies: An introduction to statistical issues and methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 11: 455– 468.Google Scholar
Oostenbrink JB, Bouwmans C, Koopmanschap MA, et al. 2004. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en standaard kostprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. College voor zorgverzekeringen;
Picavet HSJ, Schouten JSAG. 2003 Musculoskeletal pain in the Netherlands: Prevalences, consequences and risk groups, the DMC (3)—study. Pain. 102: 167– 178.Google Scholar
van Tulder MW, Ostelo RWJG, Vlaeyen JWS, et al. 2001 A systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine. 26: 270– 281.Google Scholar
Waddell G. The back pain revolution. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1998: 103– 117, 351– 367.
Winters JC, de Jongh AC, van der Windt DAWM, et al. 1999 NHG-Standaard Schouderklachten. Huisarts en Wetenschap. 42: 222– 231.Google Scholar