ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Health economic evaluation of blended collaborative care for older multimorbid heart failure patients: study protocol.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adapting and Implementing a Blended Collaborative Care Intervention for Older Adults with Multimorbidity: Quantitative and Qualitative Results from the ESCAPE Pilot Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated care, in particular the 'Blended Collaborative Care (BCC)' strategy, may have the potential to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in multimorbid patients with heart failure (HF) and psychosocial burden at no or low additional cost. The ESCAPE trial is a randomised controlled trial for the evaluation of a BCC approach in five European countries. For the economic evaluation of alongside this trial, the four main objectives were: (i) to document the costs of delivering the intervention, (ii) to assess the running costs across study sites, (iii) to evaluate short-term cost-effectiveness and cost-utility compared to providers' usual care, and (iv) to examine the budgetary implications.
methodsThe trial-based economic analyses will include cross-country cost-effectiveness and cost-utility assessments from a payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis will calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L and national value sets. Cost-effectiveness will include the cost per hospital admission avoided and the cost per depression-free days (DFD). Resource use will be measured from different sources, including electronic medical health records, standardised questionnaires, patient receipts and a care manager survey. Uncertainty will be addressed using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: The various methods and approaches used for data acquisition should provide insights into the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of a BCC intervention. Providing the economic evaluation of ESCAPE will contribute to a country-based structural and organisational planning of BCC (e.g., the number of patients that may benefit, how many care managers are needed). Improved care is expected to enhance health-related quality of life at little or no extra cost.
trial registrationThe study follows CHEERS2022 and is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00025120).
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.