Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2025
Cost-effectiveness of a self-management maintenance programme following pulmonary rehabilitation: a UK randomised controlled trial for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but impact typically only lasts 6-12 months. This paper presents results of an economic evaluation of a PR maintenance programme (Self-management Programme of Activity, Coping and Education (SPACE)) undertaken within a prospective assessor-blind randomised controlled trial.
methodsAdults with COPD who had completed PR within the previous 4 weeks were randomised to SPACE or best usual care. Healthcare use, personal expenditure and societal costs were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. SPACE costs included staff training, materials and delivery of group sessions. Health utility recorded (EQ-5D-5L) with analysis comparing differences in mean values at 6 and 12 months, over baseline utility scores. Observed changes compared with threshold for COPD clinical significance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated from National Health Service and societal perspectives. Cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values compared with willingness-to-pay threshold (≤£30 000). Uncertainties in costs and outcomes incorporated into a sensitivity analysis. Missing values imputed using a Bayesian mixed model with confounders.
results116 patients recruited between October 2019 and June 2022 (57 intervention and 59 control). No significant differences at baseline in age, body mass index, smoking, forced expiratory volume in 1 s and health utility (EQ-5D-5L). Mean healthcare costs in the SPACE group were £139.72 lower per patient over 12 months compared with usual care. At 12 months, the SPACE group retained higher (p=0.04) utility value 0.7609 (SE=0.0238) versus control patients 0.6738 (SE=0.0348). The recorded 0.1178 advantage in mean QALY values (p<0.05) is above the threshold (0.051) for COPD significance. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicate a 97% chance of achieving £20 000 per QALY. Patient and societal costs increase this percentage. DISCUSSION: This study addresses an important gap in current evidence for non-pharmacological COPD interventions. The PR maintenance programme (SPACE) is shown to be highly cost-effective at 12 months. Future research should consider cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation programmes, as well as tailored digital support beyond 12 months.
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.