Trial reportValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2019
Stroke Warning Information and Faster Treatment (SWIFT): Cost-Effectiveness of a Stroke Preparedness Intervention.
Trial report in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of improvement strategies for reperfusion treatments in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Towards a Multi-sectoral Approach to Population Health: A Scoping Review of Cross-sectoral Evaluations of Health Interventions.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Review
- The economic impacts of the multifaceted stroke 1-2-0 educational campaign in China.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLess than 25% of stroke patients arrive to an emergency department within the 3-hour treatment window.
objectiveWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a stroke preparedness behavioral intervention study (Stroke Warning Information and Faster Treatment [SWIFT]), a stroke intervention demonstrating capacity to decrease race-ethnic disparities in ED arrival times.
methodsUsing the literature and SWIFT outcomes for 2 interventions, enhanced educational (EE) materials, and interactive intervention (II), we assess the cost-effectiveness of SWIFT in 2 ways: (1) Markov model, and (2) cost-to-outcome ratio. The Markov model primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. The primary cost-to-outcome endpoint was cost per additional patient with ED arrival <3 hours, stroke knowledge, and preparedness capacity. We assessed the ICER of II and EE versus standard care (SC) from a health sector and societal perspective using 2015 USD, a time horizon of 5 years, and a discount rate of 3%.
resultsThe cost-effectiveness of the II and EE programs was, respectively, $227.35 and $74.63 per additional arrival <3 hours, $440.72 and $334.09 per additional person with stroke knowledge proficiency, and $655.70 and $811.77 per additional person with preparedness capacity. Using a societal perspective, the ICER for EE versus SC was $84 643 per QALY gained and the ICER for II versus EE was $59 058 per QALY gained. Incorporating fixed costs, EE and II would need to administered to 507 and 1693 or more patients, respectively, to achieve an ICER of $100 000/QALY.
conclusionII was a cost-effective strategy compared with both EE and SC. Nevertheless, high initial fixed costs associated with II may limit its cost-effectiveness in settings with smaller patient populations.
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.