Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2013
Cost-effectiveness of a coronary heart disease secondary prevention program in patients with myocardial infarction: results from a randomised controlled trial (ProActive Heart).
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Behaviour change interventions to improve physical activity in adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of telehealth-delivered nutrition interventions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Nutrition reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Offering a lifestyle intervention to women of premenopausal age as primary prevention for cardiovascular disease? - assessing its cost-effectiveness.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2022Pooled it
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Interventions to promote patient utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Effects of telephone-based health coaching on patient-reported outcomes and health behavior change: A randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- The Impact of Population-Based Disease Management Services on Health Care Utilisation and Costs: Results of the CAPICHe Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: results from the KORINNA study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2015Trial
- Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating community health worker-based interventions for the secondary prevention of acute coronary syndromes in India (SPREAD).American heart journal · 2014Trial
- Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cardiovascular Quality Improvement Strategy in India: The C-QIP Trial.American heart journal · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Digital Tools for Behavior Change Interventions Among People With Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2023Review
- Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Late Time Window Thrombectomy for Patients With Ischemic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, and their additive effects on myocardial infarction and stroke: a cross-sectional study in Nanjing, China.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Estimating the future burden of cardiovascular disease and the value of lipid and blood pressure control therapies in China.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Depression, anxiety, and quality of life after percuataneous coronary interventions.Industrial psychiatry journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in coronary heart disease (CHD) secondary prevention programs is low. Telephone-delivered CHD secondary prevention programs may overcome the treatment gap. The telephone-based health coaching ProActive Heart trial intervention has previously been shown to be effective for improving health-related quality of life, physical activity, body mass index, diet, alcohol intake and anxiety. As a secondary aim, the current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the ProActive Heart intervention compared to usual care.
methods430 adult myocardial infarction patients were randomised to a six-month CHD secondary prevention 'health coaching' intervention or 'usual care' control group. Primary outcome variables were health-related quality of life (SF-36) and physical activity (Active Australia Survey). Data were collected at baseline, six-months (post-intervention) and 12 months (six-months post-intervention completion) for longer term effects. Cost-effectiveness data [health utility (SF-6D) and health care utilisation] were collected using self-reported (general practitioner, specialist, other health professionals, health services, and medication) and claims data (hospitalisation rates). Intervention effects are presented as mean differences (95% CI), p-value.
resultsImprovements in health status (SF-6D) were observed in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups at six [0.012 (-0.016, 0.041), p = 0.372] or 12 months [0.011 (-0.028, 0.051) p = 0.738]. Patients in the health coaching group were significantly more likely to be admitted to hospital due to causes unrelated to cardiovascular disease (p = 0.042). The overall cost for the health coaching group was higher ($10,574 vs. $8,534, p = 0.021), mainly due to higher hospitalisation (both CHD and non-CHD) costs ($6,841 vs. $4,984, p = 0.036). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $85,423 per QALY.
conclusionsThere was no intervention effect measured using the SF-36/SF-6D and ProActive Heart resulted in significantly increased costs. The cost per QALY gained from ProActive Heart was high and above acceptable limits compared to usual care.
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.