Trial reportPloS one2012
Is it time for a change? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a multidisciplinary integrated care model for residential homes to usual care.
Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment: systematic review of economic evaluations.Age and ageing · 2026Pooled it
- Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of ceftazidime-avibactam as definitive treatment for treatment of carbapenem-resistantFrontiers in public health · 2023Article
- ASSIST: a reablement program for older adults in Sweden - a feasibility study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Vaborem in Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) -Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in Italy.Health economics review · 2021Article
- Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Benchmarking European Home Care Models for Older Persons on Societal Costs: The IBenC Study.Health services insights · 2021Article
- Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations in Integrated Care: Evidence from a Systematic Review.International journal of integrated care · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam for treatment of carbapenem-resistantAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
- Satisfaction in Older Persons and General Practitioners during the Implementation of Integrated Care.PloS one · 2016Article
- Advancing aged care: a systematic review of economic evaluations of workforce structures and care processes in a residential care setting.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2016Review
- Integration and continuity of Care in health care network models for frail older adults.Revista de saude publica · 2014Review
- A Structured Process Description of a Pragmatic Implementation Project: Improving Integrated Care for Older Persons in Residential Care Homes.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Integrated Care (MIC) model compared to Usual Care (UC) in Dutch residential homes.
methodsThe economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a 6 month, clustered, randomized controlled trial involving 10 Dutch residential homes. Outcome measures included a quality of care weighted sum score, functional health (COOP WONCA) and Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY). Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to analyze differences in costs and cost-effectiveness.
resultsThe quality of care sum score in MIC was significantly higher than in UC. The other primary outcomes showed no significant differences between the MIC and UC. The costs of providing MIC were approximately €225 per patient. Total costs were €2,061 in the MIC group and €1,656 for the UC group (mean difference €405, 95% -13; 826). The probability that the MIC was cost-effective in comparison with UC was 0.95 or more for ceiling ratios larger than €129 regarding patient related quality of care. Cost-effectiveness planes showed that the MIC model was not cost-effective compared to UC for the other outcomes.
interpretationClinical effect differences between the groups were small but quality of care was significantly improved in the MIC group. Short term costs for MIC were higher. Future studies should focus on longer term economic and clinical effects.
trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN11076857.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.