Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:18:48.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the Rehabilitation of Trauma Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2019

Suzanne H Wiertsema ,
Johanna M van Dongen Open the ORCID record for Johanna M van Dongen [Opens in a new window] ,
Edwin Geleijn ,
Rosalie J Huijsmans ,
Frank W Bloemers ,
Vincent de Groot  and
Raymond WJG Ostelo
Suzanne H Wiertsema*
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health research institute
Johanna M van Dongen
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health research institute
Edwin Geleijn
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
Rosalie J Huijsmans
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
Frank W Bloemers
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Trauma Surgery
Vincent de Groot
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health research institute
Raymond WJG Ostelo
Affiliation:
Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Health Science, Amsterdam Public Health research institute
*
Author for correspondence: Suzanne Wiertsema, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM), a multidisciplinary transmural rehabilitation model for trauma patients, compared with regular care.

Methods

The economic evaluation was performed alongside a before-and-after study, with a convenience control group measured only afterward, and a 9-month follow-up. Control group patients received regular care and were measured before implementation of the TTCM. Intervention group patients received the TTCM and were measured after its implementation. The primary outcome was generic health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Secondary outcomes included disease-specific HR-QOL, pain, functional status, and perceived recovery.

Results

Eighty-three trauma patients were included in the intervention group and fifty-seven in the control group. Total societal costs were lower in the intervention group than in the control group, but not statistically significantly so (EUR-267; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], EUR-4,175–3011). At 9 months, there was no statistically significant between-group differences in generic HR-QOL (0.05;95 percent CI, −0.02–0.12) and perceived recovery (0.09;95 percent CI, −0.09–0.28). However, mean between-group differences were statistically significantly in favor of the intervention group for disease-specific HR-QOL (−8.2;95 percent CI, −15.0–−1.4), pain (−0.84;95CI, −1.42–−0.26), and functional status (−20.1;95 percent CI, −29.6–−10.7). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that if decision makers are not willing to pay anything per unit of effect gained, the TTCM has a 0.54–0.58 probability of being cost-effective compared with regular care. For all outcomes, this probability increased with increasing values of willingness-to-pay.

Conclusions

The TTCM may be cost-effective compared with regular care, depending on the decision-makers willingness to pay and the probability of cost-effectiveness that they perceive as acceptable.

Keywords

Trauma rehabilitationHR-QOLCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluationHR-QOL
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , 2019 , pp. 307 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The medical ethics committee of the VUmc assessed the present study, and decided the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) was not applicable (registered under number 2013.454). All participants gave informed consent. The trial is registered at the Dutch Trial Register (NTR5474). Authors’ contributions: S.H.W. has been involved in the development of the TTCM, the design of the study, the implementation of the TTCM, the data collection, the data analysis and writing the manuscript. JMD was closely involved in the design of the study, was responsible for the economic evaluation and involved in writing the manuscript. EG and RJH were substantially involved in development of the TTCM and negotiated a model for reimbursement with hospital managers, policy makers and insurers. F.W.B., V.G., and R.W.O. were involved in the overall design of the study and were critically reading the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: We thank all trauma patients who participated in the study. Furthermore, we thank Frank Duijff and Sander Assendelft from FysioRoadmap for their ongoing support and technical assistance during the project. Finally we thank Milou Rossenaar for her help with the cost-effectiveness analyses as a part of her graduation thesis. Financial support: This project is partly funded by “Zilveren Kruis Health Insurer” (grant number Z516).

References

1.World Health Organisation (2002) The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
2.Lozano, R, Naghavi, M, Foreman, K, et al. (2012) Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380(9859), 2095–2128.Google Scholar
3.Murray, CJ, Vos, T, Lozano, R, et al. (2012) Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380(9859), 2197–2223.Google Scholar
4.Kotagal, M, Agarwal-Harding, KJ, Mock, C, et al. (2014) Health and economic benefits of improved injury prevention and trauma care worldwide. PLoS One 9, e91862Google Scholar
5.den Hertog, P, Stam, C, Valkenberg, H (2013) Rapport Letsels en letselpreventie [Trauma and trauma prevention]. Amsterdam: VeiligheidNL.Google Scholar
6.Lansink, KW, Leenen, LP (2007) Do designated trauma systems improve outcome? Curr Opin Crit Care 13, 686–690.Google Scholar
7.MacKenzie, EJ, Rivara, FP, Jurkovich, GJ, et al. (2006) A national evaluation of the effect of trauma-center care on mortality. N Engl J Med 354, 366–378.Google Scholar
8.Haas, B, Jurkovich, GJ, Wang, J, et al. (2009) Survival advantage in trauma centers: Expeditious intervention or experience? J Am Coll Surg 208, 28–36.Google Scholar
9.Celso, B, Tepas, J, Langland-Orban, B, et al. (2006) A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcome of severely injured patients treated in trauma centers following the establishment of trauma systems. J Trauma 60, 371–378; discussion 378.Google Scholar
10.Wiertsema, SH, van Dongen, JM, Geleijn, E, et al. (2017) Evaluation of a new Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) for the rehabilitation of trauma patients: A study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 17, 99.Google Scholar
11.Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ, Stoddart, GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
12.Seguin, J, Garber, BG, Coyle, D, Hebert, PC (1999) An economic evaluation of trauma care in a Canadian lead trauma hospital. J Trauma 47(3 Suppl), S99-S103.Google Scholar
13.Durham, R, Pracht, E, Orban, B, et al. (2006) Evaluation of a mature trauma system. Ann Surg 243, 775–783; discussion 783–785.Google Scholar
14.MacKenzie, EJ, Weir, S, Rivara, FP, et al. (2010) The value of trauma center care. J Trauma 69, 1–10.Google Scholar
15.Higgins, JTP, Green, S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.Google Scholar
16.van Dongen, JM, van Wier, MF, Tompa, E, et al. (2014) Trial-based economic evaluations in occupational health: Principles, methods, and recommendations. J Occup Environ Med 56, 563–572.Google Scholar
17.Netwerk Traumarevalidatie VUmc [Trauma rehabilitation network VUmc]. www.traumarevalidatie.nl.Google Scholar
18.Lamers, L, Stalmeier, P, McDonnell, J, Krabbe, P, van Busschbach, J (2006) The Dutch tariff: Results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 15(10), 1121–1132.Google Scholar
19.Hudak, PL, Amadio, PC, Bombardier, C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29, 602–608.Google Scholar
20.Veehof, MM, Sleegers, EJ, van Veldhoven, NH, Schuurman, AH, van Meeteren, NL (2002) Psychometric qualities of the Dutch language version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (DASH-DLV). J Hand Ther 15, 347–354.Google Scholar
21.Binkley, JM, Stratford, PW, Lott, SA, Riddle, DL (1999) The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): Scale development, measurement properties, and clinical application. Phys Ther 79, 371–83.Google Scholar
22.Hoogeboom, TJ, de Bie, RA, den Broeder, AA, van den Ende, CH (2012) The Dutch Lower Extremity Functional Scale was highly reliable, valid and responsive in individuals with hip/knee osteoarthritis: A validation study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13, 117.Google Scholar
23.Roland, M, Morris, R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 8, 141–144.Google Scholar
24.Brouwer, S, Kuijer, W, Dijkstra, PU, et al. (2004) Reliability and stability of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire: Intra class correlation and limits of agreement. Disabil Rehabil 26, 162–165.Google Scholar
25.Kempen, GI, Miedema, I, Ormel, J, Molenaar, W (1996) The assessment of disability with the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 43(11), 1601–1610.Google Scholar
26.Von Korff, M, Jensen, MP, Karoly, P (2000) Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(24), 3140–3151.Google Scholar
27.Chatman, AB, Hyams, SP, Neel, JM, et al. (1997) The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: Measurement properties in patients with knee dysfunction. Phys Ther 77, 820–879.Google Scholar
28.Beurskens, AJ, de Vet, HC, Koke, AJ, et al. (1999) A patient-specific approach for measuring functional status in low back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22, 144–148.Google Scholar
29.Kamper, SJ, Ostelo, RW, Knol, DL, et al. (2010) Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 63, 760–766.Google Scholar
30.Frick, FD (2009) Microcosting quantity data collection methods. Med Care 47(7 Suppl 1), S76-S81.Google Scholar
31.Tan, SS, Bouwmans, CA, Rutten, FF, Hakkaart-van Roijen, L (2012) Update of the Dutch Manual for Costing in Economic Evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28, 152–158.Google Scholar
32.G-Standard (2006) The Hague, The Netherlands: Z-Index BV. https://www.z-index.nl/g-standaardGoogle Scholar
33.Koopmanschap, MA (2005) PRODISQ: A modular questionnaire on productivity and disease for economic evaluation studies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 5, 23–28.Google Scholar
34.Kessler, RC, Ames, M, Hymel, PA, et al. (2004) Using the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) to evaluate the indirect workplace costs of illness. J Occup Environ Med 46, S23-S37.Google Scholar
35.Azur, MJ, Stuart, EA, Frangakis, C, Leaf, PJ (2011) Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 20, 40–49.Google Scholar
36.White, IR, Royston, P, Wood, AM (2011) Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 30, 377–399.Google Scholar
37.Black, WC (1990) The CE plane: A graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 10, 212–214.Google Scholar
38.Fenwick, E, O'Brien, BJ, Briggs, A (2004) Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 13, 405–415.Google Scholar
39.Holbrook, TL, Anderson, JP, Sieber, WJ, Browner, D, Hoyt, DB (1999) Outcome after major trauma: 12-month and 18-month follow-up results from the Trauma Recovery Project. J Trauma 46, 765–771; discussion 771–773.Google Scholar
40.Willenberg, L, Curtis, K, Taylor, C, et al. (2012) The variation of acute treatment costs of trauma in high-income countries. BMC Health Serv Res 12, 267.Google Scholar
41.Wu, J, Faux, SG, Harris, I, Poulos, CJ (2016) Integration of trauma and rehabilitation services is the answer to more cost-effective care. ANZ J Surg 86(11), 900–904.Google Scholar
42.Bouman, AI, Hemmen, B, Evers, SM, et al. (2017) Effects of an integrated ‘fast track’ rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients: A non-randomized clinical trial in the Netherlands. PLoS One 2, e0170047.Google Scholar
43.Lahtinen, A, Leppilahti, J, Vahanikkila, H, et al. (2017) Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: A randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities. Clin Rehabil 31, 672–685.Google Scholar
44.Gabbe, BJ, Sutherland, AM, Hart, MJ, Cameron, PA (2010) Population-based capture of long-term functional and quality of life outcomes after major trauma: The experiences of the Victorian State Trauma Registry. J Trauma 69, 532–536; discussion 536.Google Scholar
45.Holtslag, HR, Post, MW, Lindeman, E, Van der Werken, C (2007) Long-term functional health status of severely injured patients. Injury 38, 280–289.Google Scholar
46.Lindsay, R, Burge, RT, Strauss, DM (2005) One year outcomes and costs following a vertebral fracture. Osteoporos Int 16, 78–85.Google Scholar
47.Ho, AM, Phelan, R, Mizubuti, GB, et al. (2018) Bias in before-after studies: Narrative overview for anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 126, 1755–1762.Google Scholar
48.Petrou, S, Gray, A (2011) Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: Design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ 342, d1548.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Wiertsema et al. supplementary material

Wiertsema et al. supplementary material Figure S1

Download Wiertsema et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 107.1 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Wiertsema et al. supplementary material

Wiertsema et al. supplementary material Figure S2

Download Wiertsema et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 26.8 KB