Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40601661›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2025

A multi-center trial-based economic evaluation of the SELF-program: A function-focused care program for nursing staff providing long-term care for geriatric clients in nursing homes compared to care as usual.

Ruben M W A Drost, Ghislaine A P G van Mastrigt, Stan Vluggen, Silke F Metzelthin, Michel H C Bleijlevens, Getty Huisman-de Waal, Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel, Sandra M G Zwakhalen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Ruben M W A DrostDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7428-040X
Ghislaine A P G van MastrigtDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stan VluggenDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Silke F MetzelthinDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Michel H C BleijlevensDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Getty Huisman-de WaalRadboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-4176
Janneke M de Man-van GinkelLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sandra M G ZwakhalenDepartment of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the SElf-reliance, autonomy, Life quality, and Functionality-program (SELF) for nursing staff in nursing homes who provide long-term care to geriatric clients as compared to care as usual from a societal perspective.

methodsThe economic evaluation ran parallel to a two-arm multicenter cluster-randomized trial, in which the nursing staff in the intervention group received the SELF-program, and nursing staff in the control group received no program and delivered care as usual. Outcomes and societal costs for clients who received care from nursing staff were measured using questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. The main measures included Activities of Daily Living, as measured with the GARS-4, utility scores as measured with the EQ-5D-5L, and costs related to the intervention, informal care and health service utilization. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted, calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from societal and healthcare perspectives. Bootstrap analyses were performed, with results displayed on cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.

resultsIn total, 28 wards with a total of 241 clients were randomized (intervention, n = 115; control group, n = 126) From a societal perspective, care delivered in the intervention group led to lower costs than care as usual over the 6-month period, with incremental costs of -€584. In terms of the GARS-4 sum score, the SELF-program resulted in a favorable decrease of 0.81 points, and in terms of QALYs, it resulted in a favorable increase of 0.07. From a healthcare perspective, the incremental costs amounted to €556, with ratios of €410 per point reduction on the GARS-4 and €8,356 per QALY.

conclusionsThe main analysis suggests that over 6 months from a societal perspective for both outcomes, the intervention is cost-effective as compared to care as usual.

trial registrationInternational Clinical Trials Registry Platform: NL9189; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9189.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareNursing HomesNursing StaffActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID40601661
PMCPMC12221074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.