Prevention of sickness absence through early identification and rehabilitation of at-risk patients with musculoskeletal disorders (PREVSAM): a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing team-based rehabilitation in primary care vs treatment as usual.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lena Bornhöft, Annika Ekhammar, Mikael Svensson, Maria Dottori, Maria E H Larsson
{"title":"Prevention of sickness absence through early identification and rehabilitation of at-risk patients with musculoskeletal disorders (PREVSAM): a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing team-based rehabilitation in primary care vs treatment as usual.","authors":"Lena Bornhöft, Annika Ekhammar, Mikael Svensson, Maria Dottori, Maria E H Larsson","doi":"10.1186/s12913-026-15652-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The PREVention of Sickness Absence through early identification and rehabilitation of at-risk patients with Musculoskeletal disorders (PREVSAM) model for team-based rehabilitation in primary care of patients with higher risk for sickness absence was investigated in a randomised controlled trial. Participants were screened with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire - short form using a minimum value of 40 points for inclusion in the trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed alongside the PREVSAM trial from both healthcare and societal perspectives regarding costs in relation to change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over one year for groups receiving care according to the PREVSAM model and treatment as usual.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both team-based rehabilitation and treatment as usual led to similar QALYs over one year. From the healthcare perspective, the PREVSAM model was somewhat more costly, with higher rehabilitation costs not being fully outweighed by lower costs for other primary care, specialised care, and medication. From the societal perspective, there was essentially no difference in total costs, as lower production loss costs essentially compensated for the higher rehabilitation costs. The probability that the PREVSAM model is cost-effective was close to 50% across conventional Swedish cost-effectiveness thresholds (€43 000 to €86 000 per QALY).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PREVSAM model and treatment as usual led to similar health outcomes and to similar total societal costs. Neither strategy was shown to be preferable on economic grounds at conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. High individual variation implies that the screening process needs to be further refined to better identify those patients truly in need of team-based care and to facilitate appropriate resource stratification.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Protocol ID: NCT03913325. Study Registration Date, First submitted 09/04/2019, First posted 12/04/2019.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13621585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15652-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The PREVention of Sickness Absence through early identification and rehabilitation of at-risk patients with Musculoskeletal disorders (PREVSAM) model for team-based rehabilitation in primary care of patients with higher risk for sickness absence was investigated in a randomised controlled trial. Participants were screened with the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire - short form using a minimum value of 40 points for inclusion in the trial.

Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed alongside the PREVSAM trial from both healthcare and societal perspectives regarding costs in relation to change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over one year for groups receiving care according to the PREVSAM model and treatment as usual.

Results: Both team-based rehabilitation and treatment as usual led to similar QALYs over one year. From the healthcare perspective, the PREVSAM model was somewhat more costly, with higher rehabilitation costs not being fully outweighed by lower costs for other primary care, specialised care, and medication. From the societal perspective, there was essentially no difference in total costs, as lower production loss costs essentially compensated for the higher rehabilitation costs. The probability that the PREVSAM model is cost-effective was close to 50% across conventional Swedish cost-effectiveness thresholds (€43 000 to €86 000 per QALY).

Conclusions: The PREVSAM model and treatment as usual led to similar health outcomes and to similar total societal costs. Neither strategy was shown to be preferable on economic grounds at conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds. High individual variation implies that the screening process needs to be further refined to better identify those patients truly in need of team-based care and to facilitate appropriate resource stratification.

Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Protocol ID: NCT03913325. Study Registration Date, First submitted 09/04/2019, First posted 12/04/2019.

通过对高危肌肉骨骼疾病患者的早期识别和康复预防缺勤(PREVSAM):一项比较初级保健团队康复与常规治疗的成本效益分析。
背景:在一项随机对照试验中,通过对高危肌肉骨骼疾病患者的早期识别和康复预防缺勤(PREVSAM)模型,对缺勤高风险患者的初级保健团队康复进行了研究。参与者通过Örebro肌肉骨骼疼痛筛查问卷进行筛选,该问卷是一份简短的问卷,最低评分为40分,以纳入试验。方法:本成本-效果分析(CEA)与PREVSAM试验同时进行,从医疗保健和社会的角度来看,接受PREVSAM模型护理和常规治疗的组在一年内质量调整生命年(QALYs)变化的成本。结果:团队康复治疗与常规治疗在一年内的质量质量相似。从医疗保健的角度来看,PREVSAM模式的成本更高,其他初级保健、专门护理和药物的较低成本并没有完全抵消较高的康复成本。从社会角度看,总成本基本上没有差别,因为较低的生产损失成本基本上补偿了较高的恢复成本。在传统的瑞典成本效益阈值(每个QALY 4.3万欧元至8.6万欧元)范围内,PREVSAM模型具有成本效益的概率接近50%。结论:PREVSAM模型和常规治疗导致相似的健康结果和相似的社会总成本。以传统的成本效益阈值来衡量,这两种战略在经济方面都不可取。高度的个体差异意味着筛查过程需要进一步完善,以更好地识别那些真正需要团队护理的患者,并促进适当的资源分层。试验注册:该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,协议ID: NCT03913325。研究注册日期,首次提交于2019年4月9日,首次发布于2019年4月12日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书