Trial reportThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2017
Long-term cost effectiveness of cardiac secondary prevention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Potential Cost Savings for the Healthcare System by Physical Activity in Different Chronic Diseases: A Pilot Study in the Veneto Region of Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: a protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Long-term outcomes after revascularization and medical therapy in premature coronary artery disease for cost-effectiveness study: A systematic review protocol.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
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
While cardiac secondary prevention in primary care is established practice, little is known about its long-term cost effectiveness. This study examines the cost effectiveness of a secondary prevention intervention in primary care in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland over 6 years. An economic evaluation, based on a cluster randomised controlled trial of 903 patients with heart disease, was conducted 4.5 years after the intervention ceased to be delivered. Patients originally randomised to the control received usual practice while those randomised to the intervention received a tailored care package over the 1.5-year delivery period. Data on healthcare costs and quality adjusted life expectancy were used to undertake incremental cost utility analysis. Multilevel regression was used to estimate mean cost effectiveness and uncertainty was examined using cost effectiveness acceptability curves. At 6 years, there was a divergence in the results across jurisdictions. While the probability of the intervention being cost effective in the Republic of Ireland was 0.434, 0.232, 0.180, 0.150, 0.115 and 0.098 at selected threshold values of €5000, €15,000, €20,000, €25,000, €35,000 and €45,000, respectively, all equivalent probabilities for Northern Ireland equalled 1.000. Our findings suggest that the intervention in its current format is likely to be more cost effective than usual general practice care in Northern Ireland, but this is not the case in the Republic of Ireland.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26961365What 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.