Trial reportBMJ open gastroenterology2026
Digital self-management programme for pain, fatigue and faecal incontinence in inflammatory bowel disease: cost-effectiveness analysis of the IBD-BOOST randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePeople living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently experience abdominal pain, fatigue and faecal incontinence that persist despite optimal medical treatment. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of IBD-BOOST, a digital, interactive, facilitator-supported self-management intervention targeting these symptoms.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside the IBD-BOOST trial, which randomised people with IBD experiencing fatigue, pain and/or faecal incontinence to the IBD-BOOST intervention (N=391) or care as usual (N=389) over 12 months. While the IBD-BOOST intervention did not significantly improve the primary trial outcome measures (UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and global rating of symptom relief), trends towards benefit were observed across study outcomes. Therefore, this analysis focuses on secondary health economic outcome measures. The cost of the intervention, including its development, facilitation and delivery, was assessed. Participants reported their health service use, out-of-pocket expenses and time off work over the previous 3 months and their health-related quality of life at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. Participants' costs (2023 UK£) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over the 12 months were compared between study arms using mixed effects models.
resultsThe IBD-BOOST intervention resulted in additional per participant 0.016 QALYs (95% CI 0.002 to 0.030) over the 12 months in the study and cost savings of -£304.66 (-803.51 to 194.18) for healthcare and -£39.48 (-388.09 to 309.12) for out-of-pocket costs and time off work over months 4-6 and 10-12. This resulted in cost savings of -£28 633 (95% CI -51 555 to 18 764) and -£33 568 (-64 421 to 26 198) per QALY gained with IBD-BOOST from health services and societal perspectives, respectively, and high probability of cost-effectiveness.
conclusionThe IBD-BOOST intervention is highly likely to be cost-effective for the self-management of pain, fatigue and faecal incontinence in people living with IBD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71618461.
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.