ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Home-based geriatric rehabilitation after shortened inpatient rehabilitation: cost-effectiveness analysis of the "Better@Home" multicentre prospective cohort study with a matched historical control group.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGeriatric rehabilitation (GR) is facing increased demand due to population ageing. Home-based GR could reduce reliance on resource-intensive inpatient care. However, evidence is limited regarding the cost-effectiveness of home-based GR. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of home-based GR following shortened inpatient GR, compared to conventional inpatient GR.
methodsEight GR facilities in the Netherlands implemented the Better@Home program, in which home-based GR following shortened inpatient GR is compared to a historical control group receiving conventional inpatient GR. The effect measure was independence in activities of daily living (ADL), assessed by the Barthel Index (BI). Costs were measured as healthcare and societal resource use. Data was gathered at GR-admission- and GR-discharge through semi-structured interviews, registration forms, and electronic patient files. Costs and effects were analyzed using linear mixed effects (LMM) and generalised linear (GLM) regression models, combined with multiple imputation and non-parametric bootstrapping. The primary analysis was conducted from a healthcare perspective valued using national unit sources.
resultsA total of 350 participants were included (intervention n = 110; control n = 240). The adjusted incremental effect was 0.44 BI-points (95% CI - 0.44 to 1.31), and incremental costs of - €722,63 (95% CI - €2.693,68 to €1.248,43). Uncertainty assessments using non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated an average mean incremental effect of 0.44 BI-points (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) and incremental costs of - €654,72 (95% CI - €1.035,66 to - €267,48), indicating a probabilistic pattern favouring the Better@Home program.
conclusionsThe Better@Home program achieved levels of independence in ADL comparable to conventional inpatient GR while showing lower mean costs, suggesting that the program may be cost-effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875712What 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.