首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Economic evaluation of an intensive group training protocol compared with usual care physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain.
【24h】

Economic evaluation of an intensive group training protocol compared with usual care physiotherapy in patients with chronic low back pain.

机译:慢性下腰痛患者与常规护理物理治疗相比,强化训练方案的经济评估。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: Economic evaluation from a societal perspective conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of 52 weeks.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of an intensive group training protocol compared with usual care physiotherapy in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. The intensive group training protocol combines exercise therapy, back school, and behavioral principles.SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Two studies found a significant reduction in absenteeism for a graded activity program in occupational health care. This program has not yet been evaluated in a primary care physiotherapy setting.METHODS: Participating physical therapists in primary care recruited 114 patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eligible patients were randomized to either the protocol group or the guideline group. Outcome measures included functional status (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale), general perceived effect and quality of life (EuroQol-5D). Cost data were measured with cost diaries and included direct and indirect costs related to low back pain.RESULTS: After 52 weeks, the direct health care costs were significantly higher for patients in the protocol group, largely due to the costs of the intervention. The mean difference in total costs amounted to [Euro sign] 233 (95% confidence interval: [Euro sign] -2.185; [Euro sign] 2.764). The cost-effectiveness planes indicated no significant differences in cost effectiveness between the 2 groups.CONCLUSION: The results of this economic evaluation showed no difference in total costs between the protocol group and the guideline group. The differences in effects were small and not statistically significant. At present, national implementation of the protocol is not recommended.
机译:研究设计:从社会角度进行经济评估,同时进行一项为期52周的随机对照试验。目的:评估与非常规慢性病患者进行常规物理疗法相比,强化治疗方案的成本效益和成本效用腰背疼痛。强化小组培训协议结合了运动疗法,返校和行为原则。背景数据摘要:两项研究发现,职业卫生保健中分级活动计划的缺勤率显着降低。方法:尚未在初级保健物理治疗中对该方案进行评估。方法:参与初级保健的物理治疗师招募了114例慢性非特异性下腰痛患者。符合条件的患者被随机分为方案组或指南组。结果指标包括功能状态(Roland Morris残疾问卷),疼痛强度(11分数字量表),总体感觉效果和生活质量(EuroQol-5D)。结果:使用费用日记记录了费用数据,其中包括与下腰痛有关的直接和间接费用。结果:52周后,方案组患者的直接医疗保健费用明显更高,这主要是由于干预的费用。总成本的平均差异为[欧元符号] 233(95%置信区间:[欧元符号] -2.185; [欧元符号] 2.764)。成本效益平面表明两组之间在成本效益上没有显着差异。结论:这项经济评估的结果表明,方案组和指南组之间的总成本没有差异。效果差异很小,没有统计学意义。目前,不建议在国家实施该协议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号