Trial reportBMJ open2025
Economic evaluation of a person-centred care intervention with a digital platform and structured telephone support for people with chronic heart failure and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a randomised controlled trial in Sweden.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03183817 (Person-centred Care at Distance for Persons With Chronic Heart Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Person-centred Care at Distance for Persons With Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) and/or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote person-centred care and long-term medication management in primary care: post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2026Trial
- Mobile health for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a bibliometric analysis based on integrated databases (2000-2025).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective.
designA cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial.
settingThe study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden.
participantsParticipants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0-J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0-I50.9).224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group.
interventionsBoth the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon.
resultsThe intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK -68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant.
conclusionsThe results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.
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.