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.