Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31174506›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Access to health care for older people with intellectual disability: a modelling study to explore the cost-effectiveness of health checks.

Annette Bauer, Laurence Taggart, Jill Rasmussen, Chris Hatton, Lesley Owen, Martin Knapp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Annette BauerPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, England, WC2A 2AE, UK. A.bauer@lse.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5156-1631
Laurence TaggartInstitute of Nursing & Health Research, Ulster University, N Ireland, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QB, UK.
Jill RasmussenRoyal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), 30 Euston Square, London, England, NW1 2FB, UK.
Chris HattonCentre for Disability Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, LA1 4YG, UK.
Lesley OwenNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 10 Spring Gardens, London, England, SW1A 2BU, UK.
Martin KnappPersonal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, England, WC2A 2AE, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhilst people with intellectual disability grow older, evidence has emerged internationally about the largely unmet health needs of this specific ageing population. Health checks have been implemented in some countries to address those health inequalities. Evaluations have focused on measuring process outcomes due to challenges measuring quality of life outcomes. In addition, the cost-effectiveness is currently unknown. As part of a national guideline for this population we sought to explore the likely cost-effectiveness of annual health checks in England.

methodsDecision-analytical Markov modelling was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy, in which health checks were provided for older people with intellectual disability, when compared with standard care. The approach we took was explorative. Individual models were developed for a selected range of health conditions, which had an expected high economic impact and for which sufficient evidence was available for the modelling. In each of the models, hypothetical cohorts were followed from 40 yrs. of age until death. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Costs were assessed from a health provider perspective and expressed in 2016 GBP. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. We carried out probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Data from published studies as well as expert opinion informed parameters.

resultsHealth checks led to a mean QALY gain of 0.074 (95% CI 0.072 to 0.119); and mean incremental costs of £4787 (CI 95% 4773 to 5017). For a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, health checks were not cost-effective (mean ICER £85,632; 95% CI 82,762 to 131,944). Costs of intervention needed to reduce from £258 to under £100 per year in order for health checks to be cost-effective.

conclusionWhilst findings need to be considered with caution as the model was exploratory in that it was based on assumptions to overcome evidence gaps, they suggest that the way health systems deliver care for vulnerable populations might need to be re-examined. The work was carried out as part of a national guideline and informed recommendations about system changes to achieve more equal health care provisions.

Indexed as

AdultAgedContinuity of Patient CareCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleMiddle AgedPersons with Intellectual DisabilitiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeAgeingAssessmentCost-effectivenessDecision-analytic modellingEarly diagnosisHealth checksHealth inequalitiesIntellectual disabilityPrevention

Identifiers

PMID31174506
PMCPMC6556058

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.