ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the SHaPED trial testing a multifaceted implementation strategy of a model of care to improve emergency department care of low back pain.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the cost effectiveness of an implementation strategy to promote evidence-based practice for low back pain in the emergency department.
methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The trial aimed to evaluate a strategy to implement a guideline-endorsed model of care in four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. The intervention targeted emergency clinicians and was compared to usual emergency care. The main trial outcomes were healthcare use that aligns with the main principles of the model of care. The outcomes explored in this economic evaluation were lumbar imaging referrals, opioid use, and hospital admissions for low back pain. Costs related to implementation development, delivery and healthcare utilisation were included. Bivariate linear multilevel regression analyses were conducted, adjusting for clustering, time and the correlation between cost and outcome to calculate incremental cost and effects and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 5,000 replications of incremental cost and effect pairs was carried out and plotted on cost-effectiveness planes for each of the outcomes. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to explore the probability of being cost-effective based on a range of willingness to pay thresholds for each of the outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine to what extent the decision to exclude episodes of care missing healthcare costs and including inpatients costs impacted the results.
resultsThe implementation was more effective but more costly when considering the three key outcomes. The implementation was cost-effective in reducing opioid use with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3,574.29 per episode of care where opioids were avoided. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for avoiding imaging and hospitalisation were $26,298.50 and $49,290.00 per episode of care, respectively. The first sensitivity analysis highlighted uncertainty with the hospital admission result and the second sensitivity analysis found that the implementation was more likely to be cost-effective when considering emergency department costs only.
conclusionThis implementation of the model of care may be cost-effective for reducing opioid use in patients who present to emergency with low back pain, however more research into willingness to pay to avoid opioid use in emergency departments is required.
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.