Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148329›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2022

Cost-utility analysis of community occupational therapy in dementia (COTiD-UK) versus usual care: Results from VALID, a multi-site randomised controlled trial in the UK.

Elena Pizzo, Jennifer Wenborn, Jane Burgess, Jacqueline Mundy, Martin Orrell, Michael King, Rumana Omar, Stephen Morris

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Elena PizzoDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0790-7505
Jennifer WenbornDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7311-8972
Jane BurgessResearch & Development Department, North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4626-6424
Jacqueline MundyEssex Stroke Hub Team, North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT), London, United Kingdom.
Martin OrrellInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Michael KingDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rumana OmarPriment Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
North East London NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA community-based occupational therapy intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia and their family carers: the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK version (COTiD-UK); and Treatment as usual (TAU) were randomly assigned to 468 pairs (each comprising a person with dementia and a family carer) in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia (VALID) randomised controlled trial (RCT).

objectivesTo compare the cost-utility of the COTiD-UK intervention compared to TAU, using data from the VALID RCT.

methodsWe performed a cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per person with dementia and carer for both treatments over a 26 weeks' time horizon based on resource use data and utility values collected in the trial.

resultsTaking the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, including costs and benefits to the person with dementia only, measuring Health Related Quality of Life based on Dementia Quality of Life scale (DEMQOL), accounting for missing data and adjusting for baseline values, there was a significant difference in costs between COTiD-UK and TAU (mean incremental cost for COTiD-UK £784 (95% CI £233 to £1334)), but no significant difference in outcomes (mean QALYs gained 0.00664 (95% CI -0.00404, 0.01732)). The Incremental Net Monetary Benefit (INMB) for COTiD-UK versus TAU was negative at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20000 (mean -£651, 95% CI -£878 to -£424) or £30000 (mean -£585, 95% CI -£824 to -£345). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed the results.

conclusionsThis community-based occupational therapy intervention has a very low probability of being cost-effective.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisOccupational TherapyCaregiversDementiaHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35148329
PMCPMC8836304
OpenAlexW4211120260

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.