Trial reportBMJ open2021
Economic evaluation of an Australian nurse home visiting programme: a randomised trial at 3 years.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of 'right@home' Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care.
designA cost-utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation.
settingThe right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years.
participants722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: First, a cost-consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost-utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained.
resultsWhen compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95% CI $A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95% CI -0.01 to 0.02). The probability of right@home being cost-effective by child age 3 years is less than 20%, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $A50 000 per QALY.
conclusionsBenefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89962120.
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.