RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. DESIGN: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial. SETTING: UK general practices. METHODS: People having finished primary treatment (<= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score <85, were randomised by online software to: 1)detailed 'generic' digital NHS support ('LiveWell';n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention ('Renewed';n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) 'Renewed-with-support' (n=903): 'Renewed' with additional brief email and telephone support. RESULTS: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n's respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global health enablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: An economic evaluation of therapeutic massage, exercise, and lessons in the Alexander technique for treating persistent back pain. DESIGN: Cost consequences study and cost effectiveness analysis at 12 month follow-up of a factorial randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 579 patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain recruited from primary care. INTERVENTIONS: Normal care (control), massage, and six or 24 lessons in the Alexander technique. Half of each group were randomised to a prescription for exercise from a doctor plus behavioural counselling from a nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs to the NHS and to participants. Comparison of costs with Roland-Morris disability score (number of activities impaired by pain), days in pain, and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Comparison of NHS costs with QALY gain, using incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Intervention costs ranged from pound30 for exercise prescription to pound596 for 24 lessons in Alexander technique plus exercise. Cost of health services ranged from pound50 for 24 lessons in Alexander technique to pound124 for exercise. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis of single therapies showed that exercise offered best value ( pound61 per point on disability score, pound9 per additional pain-free day, pound2847 per QALY gain). For two-stage therapy, six lessons in Alexander technique combined with exercise was the best value (additional pound64 per point on disability score, pound43 per additional pain-free day, pound5332 per QALY gain). CONCLUSIONS: An exercise prescription and six lessons in Alexander technique alone were both more than 85% likely to be cost effective at values above pound20 000 per QALY, but the Alexander technique performed better than exercise on the full range of outcomes. A combination of six lessons in Alexander technique lessons followed by exercise was the most effective and cost effective option.