Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911586›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Cost-efficiency of specialist inpatient rehabilitation for working-aged adults with complex neurological disabilities: a multicentre cohort analysis of a national clinical data set.

Lynne Turner-Stokes, Heather Williams, Alan Bill, Paul Bassett, Keith Sephton

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Contracting with sequential care providers.Health economics review · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lynne Turner-StokesFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK Regional/Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, UK.
Heather WilliamsRegional/Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, UK.
Alan BillRegional/Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, UK.
Paul BassettStatsconsultancy Ltd, London, UK.
Keith SephtonRegional/Hyper-acute Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, UK.
Northwick Park Hospital · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10185
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate functional outcomes, care needs and cost-efficiency of specialist rehabilitation for a multicentre cohort of inpatients with complex neurological disability, comparing different diagnostic groups across 3 levels of dependency.

designA multicentre cohort analysis of prospectively collected clinical data from the UK Rehabilitation Outcomes Collaborative (UKROC) national clinical database, 2010-2015.

settingAll 62 specialist (levels 1 and 2) rehabilitation services in England.

participantsWorking-aged adults (16-65 years) with complex neurological disability. INCLUSION CRITERIA: all episodes with length of stay (LOS) 8-400 days and complete outcome measures recorded on admission and discharge. Total N=5739: acquired brain injury n=4182 (73%); spinal cord injury n=506 (9%); peripheral neurological conditions n=282 (5%); progressive conditions n=769 (13%).

interventionSpecialist inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependency and care costs: Northwick Park Dependency Scale/Care Needs Assessment (NPDS/NPCNA). Functional independence: UK Functional Assessment Measure (UK Functional Independence Measure (FIM)+FAM). Cost-efficiency: (1) time taken to offset rehabilitation costs by savings in NPCNA-estimated costs of ongoing care, (2) FIM efficiency (FIM gain/LOS days), (3) FIM+FAM efficiency (FIM+FAM gain/LOS days). Patients were analysed in 3 groups of dependency.

resultsMean LOS 90.1 (SD 66) days. All groups showed significant reduction in dependency between admission and discharge on all measures (paired t tests: p<0.001). Mean reduction in 'weekly care costs' was greatest in the high-dependency group at £760/week (95% CI 726 to 794)), compared with the medium-dependency (£408/week (95% CI 370 to 445)), and low-dependency (£130/week (95% CI 82 to 178)), groups. Despite longer LOS, time taken to offset the cost of rehabilitation was 14.2 (95% CI 9.9 to 18.8) months in the high-dependency group, compared with 22.3 (95% CI 16.9 to 29.2) months (medium dependency), and 27.7 (95% CI 15.9 to 39.7) months (low dependency). FIM efficiency appeared greatest in medium-dependency patients (0.54), compared with the low-dependency (0.37) and high-dependency (0.38) groups. Broadly similar patterns were seen across all 4 diagnostic groups.

conclusionsSpecialist rehabilitation can be highly cost-efficient for all neurological conditions, producing substantial savings in ongoing care costs, especially in high-dependency patients.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHumansInpatientsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNervous System DiseasesProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionRehabilitation CentersSpecializationTreatment Outcomecost-efficiencydependencyoutcome measurement

Identifiers

PMID26911586
PMCPMC4769383
OpenAlexW2288078179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.