Self-management Programs Within Rehabilitation Yield Positive Health Outcomes at a Small Increased Cost Compared With Usual Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if self-management programs, supported by a health professional, in rehabilitation are cost effective. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched until December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials with adults completing a supported self-management program while participating in rehabilitation or receiving health professional input in the hospital or community settings were included. Self-management programs were completed outside the structured, supervised therapy and health professional sessions. Included trials had a cost measure and an effectiveness outcome reported, such as health-related quality of life or function. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations was used to determine the certainty of evidence across trials included in each meta-analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated based on the mean difference from the meta-analyses of contributing health care costs and quality of life. DATA EXTRACTION: After application of the search strategy, two independent reviewers determined eligibility of identified literature, initially by reviewing the title and/or abstract before full-text review. Using a customized form, data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-three trials were included, and 27 had data included in meta-analyses. Where self-management was a primary intervention, there was moderate certainty of a meaningful positive difference in quality-of-life utility index of 0.03 units (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.06). The cost difference between self-management as the primary intervention and usual care (comprising usual intervention/therapy, minimal intervention [including education only], or no intervention) potentially favored the comparison group (mean difference=Australian dollar [AUD]90; 95% confidence interval, -AUD130 to AUD310). The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for self-management programs as a stand-alone intervention was AUD3000, which was below the acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold in Australia per QALY gained (AUD50,000/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: Self-management as an intervention is low cost and could improve health-related quality of life.

A programme evaluation of 'First Steps': A peer-conceived, developed and led self-management intervention for people after a Parkinson's diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: A diagnosis of Parkinson's often leads to uncertainty about the future and loss of perceived control. Peer support may offer a means to address these concerns and promote self-management. DESIGN: A programme evaluation of the feasibility and potential effects of 'First Steps', utilising a pragmatic step wedge approach. Comparing First Steps (intervention) to (control) conditions.Setting: In the community at four sites in southern England.Participants: Newly diagnosed (≤ 12months) people with Parkinson's.Intervention: First Steps was a 2-day peer-conceived, developed and led intervention to support self-management.Main measures: At 0, 12 and 24 weeks anxiety and depression (Hospital, Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), daily functioning (World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS), physical activity, quality of life (EQ5D), carer strain and service utilisation were assessed. RESULTS: Between February 2018 and July 2019, 36 participants were enrolled into intervention and 21 to control conditions, all were included in statistical analysis. Lost to follow up was n = 1 (intervention) and n = 1 adverse event was reported (control, unrelated). Of the 36 allocated to the intervention n = 22 participants completed both days of First Steps during the study period. Completion of outcome measures was >95% at 24 weeks. Small effects favouring the intervention were found for HADS (odds ratio (OR) = 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24:17.84), Carer Strain Index (OR = 2.22, 95% CI 0.5:9.76) and vigorous (d = 0.42, 95% CI -0.12:0.97) and total physical activity (d = 0.41, 95% CI -0.13:0.95). EQ5D, WHOSDAS and service utilisation, was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: First Steps was feasible and safe and we found potential to benefit physical activity, mental health and carer strain. Further research with longer-term follow up is warranted.

Professional care workforce: a rapid review of evidence supporting methods of recruitment, retention, safety, and education.

BACKGROUND: Across the care economy there are major shortages in the health and care workforce, as well as high rates of attrition and ill-defined career pathways. The aim of this study was to evaluate current evidence regarding methods to improve care worker recruitment, retention, safety, and education, for the professional care workforce. METHODS: A rapid review of comparative interventions designed to recruit, retain, educate and care for the professional workforce in the following sectors: disability, aged care, health, mental health, family and youth services, and early childhood education and care was conducted. Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched, and studies published between January 2015 and November 2022 were included. We used the Quality Assessment tool for Quantitative Studies and the PEDro tools to evaluate study quality. RESULTS: 5594 articles were initially screened and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 30 studies were included in the rapid review. Studies most frequently reported on the professional nursing, medical and allied health workforces. Some studies focused on the single domain of care worker education (n = 11) while most focused on multiple domains that combined education with recruitment strategies, retention strategies or a focus on worker safety. Study quality was comparatively low with a median PEDro score of 5/10, and 77% received a weak rating on the Quality Assessment tool for Quantitative Studies. Four new workforce strategies emerged; early career rural recruitment supports rural retention; workload management is essential for workforce well-being; learning must be contextually relevant; and there is a need to differentiate recruitment, retention, and education strategies for different professional health and care workforce categories as needs vary. CONCLUSIONS: Given the critical importance of recruiting and retaining a strong health and care workforce, there is an immediate need to develop a cohesive strategy to address workforce shortfalls. This paper presents initial evidence on different interventions to address this need, and to inform care workforce recruitment and retention. Rapid Review registration PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022371721 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022371721.

Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: an exploratory economic evaluation in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, clinical and economic advantages of low-risk penicillin delabelling have been explored, supporting changes to healthcare delivery systems where penicillin delabelling is embedded into inpatient usual care. AIMS: To determine if economic advantages of low-risk inpatient penicillin delabelling, described in the international literature, are realised in the Australian context. METHODS: This explorative economic evaluation had prospective patient data collection between January and August 2019, across two Australian health services. Part 1: determine the cost per effectively delabelled patient for Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program inpatients (PADP cohort) compared with Outpatient Antibiotic Allergy Testing Service outpatients (OAATS cohort). Part 2: a cost analysis to compare hospital costs for inpatients with low-risk penicillin allergy who did (PADP cohort) and did not (usual care cohort) undergo PADP delabelling. RESULTS: Part 1: the PADP (n = 350) and OAATS (n = 27 patients, n = 36 individual visits) cohorts were comparable. In PADP, costs/proportion delabelled was $20.10/0.98, equating to $20.51 per effectively delabelled patient; in OAATS, it was $181.24/0.50, equating to $362. Compared with OAATS, PADP was associated with savings of $341.97 per effectively delabelled patient, indicating the outpatient testing was the dominated strategy, being more costly and less effective. Part 2: the PADP (n = 218) and usual care (n = 32) cohorts were comparable. Significantly favouring the delabelled PADP cohort, the mean difference per patient was -4.41 days (95% confidence interval: -7.64, -1.18) and -$9467.72 (95% confidence interval: -$15 419.98, -$3515.46). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with international literature, delabelling low-risk penicillin allergies in the inpatient setting had economic advantages in the Australian context. Fully powered economic evaluations are urgently required to consolidate these findings.

Who cares for the carer? Codesigning a carer health and wellbeing clinic for older care partners of older people in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Older carers or 'care partners' of older people experiencing care needs often provide essential support, at times while neglecting their own health and well-being. This is an increasingly frequent scenario due to both demographic changes and policy shifts towards ageing in place. Multiple community stakeholders within the care and support ecosystem hold valuable expertise about the needs of older care partners, and the programme and policy responses that may better support their health and well-being. The aim of this study was to identify the perspectives of stakeholders obtained through the codesign phase of a multicomponent research project investigating new models of care and support for older care partners suitable for the Australian context. METHODS: Principles of codesign were used to engage a purposeful sample of older care partners, health professionals, researchers, policy makers and health service administrators. Participants took part in a series of three codesign workshops conducted remotely via video conferencing. The workshops were supported with briefing material and generated consensus-based summaries, arriving at a preferred service model. FINDINGS: This paper reports the research design and structure of the codesign panels, the range of findings identified as important to support the health and well-being of older carers of older people, and the resulting service model principles. The codesigned and preferred model of care is currently being prepared for implementation and evaluation in Australia. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was conducted using codesign methodology, whereby stakeholders including older care partners and others involved in supporting older carers, were integrally involved with design, development, results and conclusions.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing self-directed therapy activities in inpatient rehabilitation settings.

BACKGROUND: Self-directed therapy activities are not currently part of routine care during inpatient rehabilitation. Understanding patient and clinician perspectives on self-directed therapy is key to increasing implementation. The aim of this study was to investigate barriers and facilitators to implementing a self-directed therapy programme ("My Therapy") in adult inpatient rehabilitation settings. METHODS: My Therapy was recommended by physiotherapists and occupational therapists and completed by rehabilitation inpatients independently, outside of supervised therapy sessions. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and patients were invited to complete an online questionnaire comprising open-ended questions on barriers and facilitators to prescribing and participating in My Therapy. A directed content analysis of free-text responses was undertaken, with data coded using categories of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model). RESULTS: Eleven patients and 20 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Patient capability was reported to be facilitated by comprehensive education by clinicians, with mixed attitudes towards the format of the programme booklet. Clinician capability was facilitated by staff collaboration. One benefit was the better use of downtime between the supervised therapy sessions, but opportunities for patients to engage in self-directed therapy were compromised by the lack of space to complete the programme. Clinician opportunity was reported to be provided via organisational support but workload was a reported barrier. Patient motivation to engage in self-directed therapy was reported to be fostered by feeling empowered, engaged, and encouraged to participate. Clinician motivation was associated with belief in the value of the programme. CONCLUSION: Despite some barriers to rehabilitation patients independently practicing therapeutic exercises and activities outside of supervised sessions, both clinicians and patients agreed it should be considered as routine practice. To do this, patient time, ward space, and staff collaboration are required. Further research is needed to scale-up the implementation of the My Therapy programme and evaluate its effectiveness.

The Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Program: A Multicenter Whole-of-Hospital Health Services Intervention and Comparative Effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergies are associated with inferior patient and antimicrobial stewardship outcomes. We implemented a whole-of-hospital program to assess the efficacy of inpatient delabeling for low-risk penicillin allergies in hospitalized inpatients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with a low-risk penicillin allergy were offered a single-dose oral penicillin challenge or direct label removal based on history (direct delabeling). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients delabeled. Key secondary endpoints were antibiotic utilization pre- (index admission) and post-delabeling (index admission and 90 days). RESULTS: Between 21 January 2019 and 31 August 2019, we assessed 1791 patients reporting 2315 antibiotic allergies, 1225 with a penicillin allergy. Three hundred fifty-five patients were delabeled: 161 by direct delabeling and 194 via oral penicillin challenge. Ninety-seven percent (194/200) of patients were negative upon oral penicillin challenge. In the delabeled patients, we observed an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillin usage (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 10.51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.39-20.48]), improved appropriate antibiotic prescribing (adjusted OR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.45-3.13]), and a reduction in restricted antibiotic usage (adjusted OR, 0.38 [95% CI, .27-.54]). In the propensity score analysis, there was an increase in narrow-spectrum penicillins (OR, 10.89 [95% CI, 5.09-23.31]) and ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitors (OR, 6.68 [95% CI, 3.94-11.35]) and a reduction in restricted antibiotic use (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, .36-.74]) and inappropriate prescriptions (relative risk ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, .26-.72]) in the delabeled group compared with the group who retained their allergy label. CONCLUSIONS: This health services program using a combination of direct delabeling and oral penicillin challenge resulted in significant impacts on the use of preferred antibiotics and appropriate prescribing.

The cost of care for children hospitalised with Invasive Group A Streptococcal Disease in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Invasive Group A Streptococcal (iGAS) disease exerts an important burden among Australian children. No Australian hospitalisation cost estimates for treating children with iGAS disease exist, so the financial impact of this condition is unknown. AIM: To determine the minimum annual healthcare cost for children (< 18 years) hospitalised with iGAS disease in Australia from a healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: A cost analysis including children with laboratory-confirmed iGAS disease hospitalised at the Royal Children's Hospital (Victoria, Australia; July 2016 to June 2019) was performed. Results were extrapolated against the national minimum iGAS disease incidence. This analysis included healthcare cost from the 7 days prior to the index admission via General Practitioner (GP) and Emergency Department (ED) consultations; the index admission itself; and the 6 months post index admission via rehabilitation admissions, acute re-admissions and outpatient consultations. Additional extrapolations of national cost data by age group, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethnicity and jurisdiction were performed. RESULTS: Of the 65 included children, 35% (n = 23) were female, 5% (n = 3) were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, and the average age was 4.4 years (SD 4.6; 65% aged 0-4). The iGAS disease related healthcare cost per child was $67,799 (SD $92,410). These costs were distributed across the 7 days prior to the index admission via GP and ED consultations (0.2 and 1.1% of total costs, respectively), the index admission itself (88.7% of the total costs); and the 6 months post index admission via rehabilitation admissions, acute re-admissions and outpatient consultations (5.3, 4.5 and 0.1% of total costs, respectively). Based on a national minimum paediatric incidence estimation of 1.63 per 100,000 children aged < 18 (95%CI: 1.11-2.32), the total annual healthcare cost for children with iGAS in 2019 was $6,200,862. The financial burden reflects the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the occurrence of iGAS disease. Costs were concentrated among children aged 0-4 years (62%). CONCLUSION: As these cost estimations were based on a minimum incidence, true costs may be higher. Strengthening of surveillance and control of iGAS disease, including a mandate for national notification of iGAS disease, is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study is a part of ongoing iGAS surveillance work across seven paediatric health services in Australia. As this is not a clinical trial, it has not undergone trial registration.

Self-managed occupational therapy and physiotherapy for adults receiving inpatient rehabilitation ('My Therapy'): protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations have been recommended alongside clinical and economic evaluations to enable an in-depth understanding of factors impacting results. My Therapy is a self-management program designed to augment usual care inpatient rehabilitation through the provision of additional occupational therapy and physiotherapy exercises and activities, for the patient to complete outside of supervised therapy. The aims of the process evaluation are to assess the implementation process by investigating fidelity, quality of implementation, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility and adaptation of the My Therapy intervention; and identify contextual factors associated with variations in outcomes, including the perspectives and experiences of patients and therapists. METHODS: The process evaluation will be conducted alongside the clinical and economic evaluation of My Therapy, within eight rehabilitation wards across two public and two private Australian health networks. All participants of the stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (2,160 rehabilitation patients) will be included in the process evaluation (e.g., ward audit); with a subset of 120 participants undergoing more intensive evaluation (e.g., surveys and activity logs). In addition, 24 staff (occupational therapists and physiotherapists) from participating wards will participate in the process evaluation. The mixed-methods study design will adopt a range of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Data will be collected via a service profile survey and audits of clinical practice across the participating wards (considering areas such as staffing profiles and prescription of self-management programs). The intensive patient participant data collection will involve structured therapy participation and self-management program audits, Exercise Self Efficacy Scale, patient activity logs, patient surveys, and patient-worn activity monitors. Staff data collection will include surveys and focus groups. DISCUSSION: The process evaluation will provide context to the clinical and economic outcomes associated with the My Therapy clinical trial. It considers how clinical and economic outcomes were achieved, and how to sustain the outcomes within the participating health networks. It will also provide context to inform future scaling of My Therapy to other health networks, and influence future models of rehabilitation and related policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000313831; registered 22/03/2021, http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380828&isReview=true ).

Self-managed occupational therapy and physiotherapy for adults receiving inpatient rehabilitation ('My Therapy'): protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring patients receive an effective dose of therapeutic exercises and activities is a significant challenge for inpatient rehabilitation. My Therapy is a self-management program which encourages independent practice of occupational therapy and physiotherapy exercises and activities, outside of supervised therapy sessions. METHODS: This implementation trial aims to determine both the clinical effectiveness of My Therapy on the outcomes of function and health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness per minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in functional independence achieved and per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, compared to usual care. Using a stepped-wedge cluster randomised design, My Therapy will be implemented across eight rehabilitation wards (inpatient and home-based) within two public and two private Australian health networks, over 54-weeks. We will include 2,160 patients aged 18 + years receiving rehabilitation for any diagnosis. Each ward will transition from the usual care condition (control group receiving usual care) to the experimental condition (intervention group receiving My Therapy in addition to usual care) sequentially at six-week intervals. The primary clinical outcome is achievement of a MCID in the Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) at discharge. Secondary outcomes include improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at discharge, length of stay, 30-day re-admissions, discharge accommodation, follow-up rehabilitation services and adverse events (falls). The economic outcomes are the cost-effectiveness per MCID in functional independence (FIM™) achieved and per QALY gained, for My Therapy compared to usual care, from a health-care sector perspective. Cost of implementation will also be reported. Clinical outcomes will be analysed via mixed-effects linear or logistic regression models, and economic outcomes will be analysed via incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. DISCUSSION: The My Therapy implementation trial will determine the effect of adding self-management within inpatient rehabilitation care. The results may influence health service models of rehabilitation including recommendations for systemic change to the inpatient rehabilitation model of care to include self-management. Findings have the potential to improve patient function and quality of life, and the ability to participate in self-management. Potential health service benefits include reduced hospital length of stay, improved access to rehabilitation and reduced health service costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000313831; registered 22/03/2021, http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380828&isReview=true ).

Feasibility of increasing the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation via independent tasks and exercises: 'My Therapy'.

INTRODUCTION: The dosage of occupational therapy and physiotherapy positively correlates with rehabilitation patient and health service outcomes. Nevertheless, increasing the dosage during inpatient rehabilitation without additional resources can be challenging. This study aimed to determine feasibility of increasing the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation with independent tasks and exercises outside of supervised sessions, the 'My Therapy' programme. METHODS: A two-group, quasi-experimental, pre-post-design examined feasibility of delivering My Therapy in addition to usual care, compared to usual care alone, for hospitalised musculoskeletal and frail older rehabilitation patients. My Therapy was prescribed by the occupational therapist and physiotherapist. A booklet was provided with an individually tailored set of tasks and exercises that were a sub-set of routine therapy, to be practised safely, effectively and independently outside of supervised sessions. The primary outcome was feasibility of My Therapy implementation to achieve at least 70% adherence. Secondary outcomes were self-reported daily My Therapy participation (minutes), total daily rehabilitation participation (minutes), adverse events, length of stay, 10-metre walk speed, FIM scores and discharge destination. RESULTS: Participation in My Therapy was achieved by 72% (83/116) of the My Therapy group, who averaged 14 min (SD 14) of daily practice outside of supervised sessions. Total daily rehabilitation participation was 177 min (SD 47) for My Therapy participants (n = 116) and 148 min (SD 88) for usual care participants (n = 89); mean difference 30 min (p = .00). A minimal clinically important difference in FIM was achieved for a significantly higher portion of the My Therapy group (22%, n = 26) compared to usual care (10%, n = 9; p = .02). There were no adverse events, safety concerns or group differences for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: My Therapy was a feasible and safe way to increase the dosage of inpatient occupational therapy and physiotherapy rehabilitation via independent practice. Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000691448.

Additional Physical Therapy Services Reduce Length of Stay and Improve Health Outcomes in People With Acute and Subacute Conditions: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To update a previous review on whether additional physical therapy services reduce length of stay, improve health outcomes, and are safe and cost-effective for patients with acute or subacute conditions. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro], PubMed) searches were updated from 2010 through June 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials evaluating additional physical therapy services on patient health outcomes, length of stay, or cost-effectiveness were eligible. Searching identified 1524 potentially relevant articles, of which 11 new articles from 8 new randomized controlled trials with 1563 participants were selected. In total, 24 randomized controlled trials with 3262 participants are included in this review. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using the form used in the original systematic review. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was applied to each meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Postintervention data were pooled with an inverse variance, random-effects model to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). There is moderate-quality evidence that additional physical therapy services reduced length of stay by 3 days in subacute settings (mean difference [MD]=-2.8; 95% CI, -4.6 to -0.9; I2=0%), and low-quality evidence that it reduced length of stay by 0.6 days in acute settings (MD=-0.6; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.0; I2=65%). Additional physical therapy led to small improvements in self-care (SMD=.11; 95% CI, .03-.19; I2=0%), activities of daily living (SMD=.13; 95% CI, .02-.25; I2=15%), and health-related quality of life (SMD=.12; 95% CI, .03-.21; I2=0%), with no increases in adverse events. There was no significant change in walking ability. One trial reported that additional physical therapy was likely to be cost-effective in subacute rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Additional physical therapy services improve patient activity and participation outcomes while reducing hospital length of stay for adults. These benefits are likely safe, and there is preliminary evidence to suggest they may be cost-effective.

Empirical evidence of recall bias for primary health care visits.

BACKGROUND: While it is common for an economic evaluation of health care to rely on trial participants for self-reported health service utilisation, there is variability in the accuracy of this data due to potential recall bias. The aim of this study was to quantify the level of recall bias in self-reported primary health care general practitioner (GP) visits following inpatient rehabilitation over a 12 month period. METHODS: This report is a secondary analysis from a larger randomised control trial of an economic evaluation of additional Saturday inpatient rehabilitation. Participants were adults who had been discharged into the community following admission to an acute general rehabilitation hospital. Participants were asked to recall primary health care visits, including community GP visits, via a telephone questionnaire which was administered at 6 and 12 months following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. Participants were asked to recall health service utilisation over each preceding 6 month period. The self-reported data were compared to equivalent claims data from the national insurer, over the same period. RESULTS: 751 participants (75% of the full trial) with a mean age of 74 years (SD 13) were included in this analysis. Over the 12 month period following discharge from rehabilitation there was an under-reporting of 14% in self-reported health service utilisation for GP visits compared to national insurer claims data over the same period. From 0 to 6 months following discharge from rehabilitation, there was an over-reporting of self-reported GP visits of 35% and from 7 to 12 months there was an under-reporting of self-reported GP visits of 36%, compared to national insurer claims data over the same period. 46% of patients reported the same or one number difference in self-reported GP visits between the 0 to 6 and the 7 to 12 month periods. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings we recommend that an economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial for an elderly adult rehabilitation population include a sensitivity analysis that inflates self-reported GP visits by 16% over 12 months. However caution is required when utilising self-reported GP visits as the data may contain periods of both over and under reporting. Where general practitioner visits are expected to vary significantly between intervention and control groups we recommend that administrative data be included in the trial to accurately capture resources for an economic evaluation.

Is cost effectiveness sustained after weekend inpatient rehabilitation? 12 month follow up from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our previous work showed that providing additional rehabilitation on a Saturday was cost effective in the short term from the perspective of the health service provider. This study aimed to evaluate if providing additional rehabilitation on a Saturday was cost effective at 12 months, from a health system perspective inclusive of private costs. METHODS: Cost effectiveness analyses alongside a single-blinded randomized controlled trial with 12 months follow up inclusive of informal care. Participants were adults admitted to two publicly funded inpatient rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus additional Saturday rehabilitation. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and for a minimal clinical important difference (MCID) in functional independence. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients [mean age 74 years (SD 13)] were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or control group (n = 500). The intervention was associated with improvements in QALY and MCID in function, as well as a non-significant reduction in cost from admission to 12 months (mean difference (MD) AUD$6,325; 95% CI -4,081 to 16,730; t test p = 0.23 and MWU p = 0.06), and a significant reduction in cost from admission to 6 months (MD AUD$6,445; 95% CI 3,368 to 9,522; t test p = 0.04 and MWU p = 0.01). There is a high degree of certainty that providing additional rehabilitation services on Saturday is cost effective. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of informal carers and self-reported health service utilization, favored the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: From a health system perspective inclusive of private costs the provision of additional Saturday rehabilitation for inpatients is likely to have sustained cost savings per QALY gained and for a MCID in functional independence, for the inpatient stay and 12 months following discharge, without a cost shift into the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry November 2009 ACTRN12609000973213.

Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up.

BACKGROUND: Providing additional Saturday rehabilitation can improve functional independence and health related quality of life at discharge and it may reduce patient length of stay, yet the economic implications are not known. The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone. METHODS: Cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a multi-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30-day follow up after discharge. Participants were adults admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in two publicly funded metropolitan rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus an additional rehabilitation service on Saturday. Incremental cost utility ratio was reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost for a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in functional independence. RESULTS: 996 patients (mean age 74 (standard deviation 13) years) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or the control group (n = 500). Mean difference in cost of AUD$1,673 (95% confidence interval (CI) -271 to 3,618) was a saving in favor of the intervention group. The incremental cost utility ratio found a saving of AUD$41,825 (95% CI -2,817 to 74,620) per QALY gained for the intervention group. The ICER found a saving of AUD$16,003 (95% CI -3,074 to 87,361) in achieving a MCID in functional independence for the intervention group. If the willingness to pay per QALY gained or for a MCID in functional independence was zero dollars the probability of the intervention being cost effective was 96% and 95%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis removing Saturday penalty rates did not significantly alter the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: From a health service perspective, the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday, compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone, is likely to be cost saving per QALY gained and for a MCID in functional independence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry November 2009 ACTRN12609000973213.

Economic evaluation of adult rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in a variety of settings.

OBJECTIVES: To report if there is a difference in costs from a societal perspective between adults receiving rehabilitation in an inpatient rehabilitation setting versus an alternative setting. If there are cost differences, to report whether opting for the least expensive program setting adversely affects patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases from the earliest possible date until May 2011. All languages were included. STUDY SELECTION: Multiple reviewers identified randomized controlled trials with a full economic evaluation that compared adult inpatient rehabilitation with an alternative. There were 29 included trials with 6746 participants. DATA EXTRACTION: Multiple observers extracted data independently. Trial appraisal included a risk of bias assessment and a checklist to report the strength of the economic evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results were synthesized using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and meta-analyses for the primary outcome of cost. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to assess for risk of bias across studies for meta-analyses. There was high-quality evidence that cost was significantly reduced for rehabilitation in the home versus inpatient rehabilitation in a meta-analysis of 732 patients poststroke (pooled SMD [δ]=-.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.47 to -.09), without compromise to patient outcomes. Results of individual trials in other patient groups (orthopedic, rheumatoid arthritis, and geriatric) receiving rehabilitation in the home or community were generally consistent with the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence that cost was significantly reduced for inpatient rehabilitation (stroke unit) versus general acute care in a meta-analysis of 463 patients poststroke (δ=.31; 95% CI, .15-.48), with improvement to patient outcomes. These results were not replicated in 2 individual trials with a geriatric and a mixed cohort, where costs did not differ between general acute care and inpatient rehabilitation. Three of the 4 individual trials, inclusive of a stroke or orthopedic population, reported less cost for an intensive inpatient rehabilitation program compared with usual inpatient rehabilitation. Sensitivity analysis included a health service perspective and varied inflation rates with no change to the significant findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analyses, a single rehabilitation service may not provide health economic benefits for all patient groups and situations. For some patients, inpatient rehabilitation may be the most cost-effective method of providing rehabilitation; yet, for other patients, rehabilitation in the home or community may be the most cost-effective model of care. To achieve cost-effective outcomes, the ideal combination of rehabilitation services and patient inclusion criteria, as well as further data for nonstroke populations, warrants further research.

Does additional acute phase inpatient rehabilitation help people return to work? A subgroup analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if a Saturday rehabilitation service in addition to usual care improved return to work outcomes 12 months post discharge and to report predictors of return to work. DESIGN: Subgroup analysis of a single-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: General inpatient rehabilitation service. SUBJECTS: A mixed cohort of 137 adults previously engaged in work, who were admitted for inpatient rehabilitation and allocated to a control group (n=63) or an intervention group (n=74). INTERVENTION: The control group received usual care rehabilitation from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus an additional rehabilitation service on Saturdays (physiotherapy and occupational therapy). MAIN OUTCOME: Return to paid or unpaid work. RESULTS: After 12 months, 36 participants (57%) in the control group and 38 participants (51%) in the intervention group had returned to work. There was no difference between groups (mean difference -1.06 hours per week, 95% CI -8.70 to 6.57) in return to work outcomes. Functional status on discharge (OR 1.05, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.10), an orthopaedic diagnosis (OR 4.92, 95%CI 2.01 to 12.03) and engagement in unpaid work prior to rehabilitation (OR 5.08, 95%CI 1.39 to 18.58) were predictive of return to work at 12 months. CONCLUSION: A Saturday rehabilitation service in addition to usual care showed no improvement in return to work outcomes at 12 months. Predictors of return to work may help identify those at risk of not returning to work and who require follow-up vocational rehabilitation services.

Patient handling training interventions and musculoskeletal injuries in healthcare workers: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Workplace injuries are a serious issue for the health and social care industry, with the sector accounting for 20 % of all serious claims reported. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether patient handling training interventions that included instruction on patient transfer techniques are effective in preventing musculoskeletal injuries in healthcare workers. Methods: Electronic databases MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Health and Safety Science Abstracts (ProQuest) were searched for controlled trials from January 1996-August 2022. Risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale and overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for each meta-analysis. Results: A total of nine studies (3903 participants) were included. There is moderate certainty evidence that could not conclude whether patient handling training affects the 12-month incidence of lower back pain (OR = 0.83, 95 % CI [0.59, 1.16]). There is low certainty evidence that patient handing training does not prevent lower back pain in health professionals without pre-existing pain (MD = -0.06, 95 % CI [-0.63, 0.52]) but may reduce lower back pain in those with pre-existing pain (MD = -2.92, 95 % CI [-5.44, -0.41]). The results also suggest that there may be a positive effect of training incorporating risk assessment on musculoskeletal injury rates; however the evidence is of very low certainty. There is low certainty evidence from a single study that training may have a short-term effect on sickness absences.) Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence to support patient handling training when delivered to all healthcare staff. Training in its current form may be an ineffective strategy for reducing musculoskeletal injuries and pain. High quality disinvestment studies or trials incorporating risk assessment strategies are warranted. Practical Applications: This review suggests health service managers question the effectiveness of current patient handling training practices and consider evaluating current practices before allocating resources to meet employee risk reduction obligations.

Patients' perceptions of participating in self-directed activities outside supervised occupational and physiotherapy within inpatient and home-based rehabilitation settings: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To investigate patients' perceptions of participating in self-directed activities, outside supervised occupational and physiotherapy, within rehabilitation settings. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 16 patients and in three instances, their carers, from three health services in Victoria, Australia, two offering inpatient and one offering home-based rehabilitation care. A thematic analysis was performed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Themes identified included the role of the clinicians in encouraging patients and instilling confidence, giving feedback and "just being there"; considerations in program delivery, including different formats, support from peers and relatives, and program familiarity and flexibility; patients' different intrinsic driving and limiting forces, including following orders, seeing results, desiring autonomy and having an "inner athlete"; and the environment, including functional activities, space, equipment, time and availability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and their carers reported positive experiences of participating in self-directed therapy programs within rehabilitation settings, with programs perceived as beneficial in optimising recovery. Patients reported a range of driving and limiting factors in relation to completing self-directed activities. Understanding these factors, relating to the patient, their environment and other people, is critical for clinicians so that they can modify their delivery accordingly, ensuring uptake and sustained implementation of self-directed activities in rehabilitation care.

Patients and their carers reported positive experiences of participating in self-directed therapy programs within rehabilitation settings.Self-directed therapy programs were seen to be beneficial in optimising recovery and helping patients return to previous levels of function.Understanding patients' specific driving and limiting factors in relation to completing self-directed activities, is critical for clinicians so that they can modify their delivery accordingly, ensuring uptake and sustained implementation of self-directed therapy in rehabilitation care.