Trial reportBMC health services research2024
Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of patient enrolment in primary care on continuity and quality of care around the world, 2014-2024, and lessons for Australia: a scoping review.The Medical journal of Australia · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was a two-year follow-up evaluation of health service use and the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent general practice intervention targeted at people at high risk of poor health outcomes.
methodsA two-year follow-up study of a clustered randomised controlled trial was conducted in South Australia during 2018-19, recruiting 1044 patients from three cohorts: children; adults (aged 18-64 years with two or more chronic diseases); and older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). Intervention group practices (n = 10) provided a multicomponent general practice intervention for 12 months. The intervention comprised patient enrolment to a preferred general practitioner (GP), access to longer GP appointments and timely general practice follow-up after episodes of hospital care. Health service outcomes included hospital use, specialist services and pharmaceuticals. The economic evaluation was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 level utility scores and used an A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold for determining cost-effectiveness.
resultsOver the two years, there were no statistically significant intervention effects for health service use. In the total sample, the mean total cost per patient was greater for the intervention than control group, but the number of QALYs gained in the intervention group was higher. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was A$18,211 per QALY gained, which is lower than the A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold used in Australia. However, the intervention's cost-effectiveness was shown to differ by cohort. For the adult cohort, the intervention was associated with higher costs and lower QALYs gained (vs the total cohort) and was not cost-effective. For the older adults cohort, the intervention was associated with lower costs (A$540 per patient), due primarily to lower hospital costs, and was more effective than usual care.
conclusionsThe positive cost-effectiveness results from the 24-month follow-up warrant replication in a study appropriately powered for outcomes such as hospital use, with an intervention period of at least two years, and targeted to older people at high risk of poor health outcomes.
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.