Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39482691›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2024

Cost-effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-COVID-19 condition after hospitalisation for COVID-19: the REGAIN RCT.

Henry Nwankwo, James Mason, Martin Underwood, Julie Bruce, Ranjit Lall, Chen Ji, Mariam Ratna, Gordon McGregor

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Cost-Effectiveness of a Personalised Self-Management Intervention for People Living With Long Covid: The LISTEN Randomised Controlled Trial.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The EQ-5D-5L and Minimal Important Change in Long COVID.Advances in rehabilitation science and practice
    Article
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.

Henry NwankwoWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. henry.nwankwo@warwick.ac.uk.
James MasonWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Martin UnderwoodWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Julie BruceWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Ranjit LallWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Chen JiWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Mariam RatnaWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Gordon McGregorWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR132046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of people continue to experience ongoing physical and mental health sequelae after recovery from acute infection. There is currently no specific treatment for the diverse symptoms associated with post-COVID-19 condition. Physical and mental health rehabilitation may help improve quality of life in such patients. This study reports the cost-effectiveness of a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation compared to best practice usual care in people with post-COVID-19 condition who were previously hospitalised.

methodsWe conducted an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial from the perspective of the UK national health service (NHS) and personnel social services perspective (PSS). Resource used and health-related quality of life were collected using bespoke questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire at three, six, and 12 months. Incremental costs and quality adjusted life years accrued over the follow-up period were estimated and reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Estimate uncertainty was managed by multiple imputation and bootstrapping cost-effectiveness estimates; and displayed graphically on the cost-effectiveness plane.

resultsOver a 12-month time horizon, incremental costs and QALYs were £305 (95% CI: -123 to 732) and 0.026 (95% CI: -0.005 to 0.052) respectively. The ICER was £11,941 per QALY indicating cost-effective care. Sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a £30,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 84%.

conclusionThe within-trial economic evaluation suggested that people with post-COVID-19 condition after hospitalisation should be offered a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation as it likely reflects a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Hospitalisation for COVID-19 has become less commonplace: further evaluation in non-hospitalised patients may be worthwhile.

trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448 23rd November 2020.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisCOVID-19AdultFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2State MedicineUnited KingdomCost-effectiveness analysisCost-utility analysisCOVID-19Long COVIDMental health rehabilitationPhysical rehabilitationPost-COVID-19 conditionRandomised controlled trialsRCTRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39482691
PMCPMC11528998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.