Trial report in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
25 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Tracey H SachHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK. T.sach@Soton.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8098-9220
Mary OnojaHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Holly ClarkeHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Miriam SanterPrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260
Ingrid MullerPrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9341-6133
Taeko BecquePrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-3794
Beth StuartPrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-7437
Julie HooperPrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6580-6150
Mary SteelePrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2595-3855
Sylvia WilczynskaKing's Clinical Trial Unit, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, UK.
Matthew J RiddCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7954-8823
Amanda RobertsPatient and Public Contributor, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Amina AhmedPatient and Public Contributor, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Lucy YardleyCentre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3853-883X
Paul LittlePrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-1873
Kate GreenwellPrimary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3662-1488
Katy SivyerCentre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4349-0102
Jacqui NuttallSouthampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Gareth GriffithsSouthampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Sinéad M LanganDepartment of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7022-7441
Laura HowellsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-7394
Paul LeightonCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5208-0274
Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5646-3093
Kim S ThomasCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7785-7465
University of Southampton · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBThe Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust · GB
Funding
Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0216-20007
6 · The paper itself
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective.
methodsTwo within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2.
resultsThe intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%).
conclusionThe free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective.
trial registrationThis trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .
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.
Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people. · full record | OpenQuestion