Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30587191›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Economic evaluation of telephone-based weight loss support for patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled trial.

Kate M O'Brien, Johanna M van Dongen, Amanda Williams, Steven J Kamper, John Wiggers, Rebecca K Hodder, Elizabeth Campbell, Emma K Robson, Robin Haskins, Chris Rissel and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Dietitians Australia position statement on telehealth.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2020
    Article
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Kate M O'BrienSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia. kate.obrien@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4657-0175
Johanna M van DongenDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Amanda WilliamsSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Steven J KamperCentre for Pain, Health and Lifestyle, Ourimbah, NSW, Australia.
John WiggersSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Rebecca K HodderSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Elizabeth CampbellSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Emma K RobsonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Robin HaskinsOutpatient Services, John Hunter Hospital, Hunter New England Local Health District, Locked Bag 1, New Lambton, NSW, 2305, Australia.
Chris RisselNSW Office of Preventive Health, Liverpool Hospital, South West Sydney Local Health District, Locked Bag 7279, Liverpool BC, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Christopher M WilliamsSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUDepartment of Health · ZAJohn Hunter Hospital · AULiverpool Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of knee osteoarthritis is increasing worldwide. Obesity is an important modifiable risk factor for both the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Consequently, international guidelines recommend all patients with knee osteoarthritis who are overweight receive support to lose weight. However, few overweight patients with this condition receive care to support weight loss. Telephone-based interventions are one potential solution to provide scalable care to the many patients with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this study is to evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of a telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service for patients with knee osteoarthritis, who are overweight or obese.

methodsAn economic evaluation was undertaken alongside a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Between May 19 and June 30, 2015, 120 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to an intervention or usual care control group in a 1:1 ratio. Participants in the intervention group received a referral to an existing non-disease specific 6-month telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the utility measure and knee pain intensity, disability, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were the clinical measures of effect. Costs included intervention costs, healthcare utilisation costs (healthcare services and medication use) and absenteeism costs due to knee pain. Data was collected at baseline, 6 weeks and 26 weeks. The primary cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective.

resultsMean cost differences between groups (intervention minus control) were $493 (95%CI: -3513 to 5363) for healthcare costs, $-32 (95%CI: -73 to 13) for medication costs, and $125 (95%CI: -151 to 486) for absenteeism costs. The total mean difference in societal costs was $1197 (95%CI: -2887 to 6106). For QALYs and all clinical measures of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective compared with usual care was less than 0.36 at all willingness-to-pay values.

conclusionsFrom a societal perspective, telephone-based weight loss support, provided using an existing non-disease specific 6-month weight management and healthy lifestyle service was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care for overweight and obese patients with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000490572 , registered 18th May 2015.

Indexed as

TelephoneAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealthy LifestyleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObesityOsteoarthritis, KneeProgram EvaluationWeight Reduction ProgramsCost-effectivenessKneeObesityOsteoarthritisTelephoneWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID30587191
PMCPMC6307168
OpenAlexW2908011188

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.