ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2025
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a nurse-led, transitional care model to improve care coordination for patients with cardiovascular diseases: results from the "Cardiolotse" study.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2025. 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.
- Continuity of care: trust-based relationship and availability of personalized information in user experience.Cadernos de saude publica · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the 12-month cost-effectiveness of the nurse-led transitional care program "Cardiolotse" (CL) for patients with cardiovascular diseases compared to usual care (UC).
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were conducted from the perspective of statutory health insurance (SHI), covering a time horizon of 12 months. Analyzed outcomes included the number of rehospitalizations and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Total costs comprised program costs and the utilization of healthcare resources. Point estimates are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to illustrate uncertainty and provide insights into the impact mechanisms of the CL program.
resultsThe study population consisted of 2550 patients, with 1256 allocated to the intervention group and 1294 to the control group. Patients who received support from CLs experienced fewer rehospitalizations and lower inpatient costs from an SHI perspective, compared to the UC group. HRQoL assessments indicated higher utility values for CL patients at the 12-month follow-up. Total program costs amounted to €1454.65 per patient. The CEA and CUA demonstrate that the CL program is dominant compared to UC from the SHI perspective.
conclusionOur study shows that the CL program not only reduces the number of rehospitalizations and costs but increases HRQoL, resulting in a dominant ICER and ICUR. Further research is necessary to evaluate longer periods of time, different levels of care intensity, and perspectives of different healthcare stakeholders.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020424, 2020-06-18, retrospectively registered.
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.