Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: to examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of 'second-generation' telecare, in addition to standard support and care that could include 'first-generation' forms of telecare, compared with standard support and care that could include 'first-generation' forms of telecare. DESIGN AND METHODS: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial with nested economic evaluation. A total of 2,600 people with social care needs participated in a trial of community-based telecare in three English local authority areas. In the Whole Systems Demonstrator Telecare Questionnaire Study, 550 participants were randomised to intervention and 639 to control. Participants who were offered the telecare intervention received a package of equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, additional to their standard health and social care services. The control group received usual health and social care. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The analyses took a health and social care perspective. RESULTS: cost per additional QALY was £297,000. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves indicated that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay of £30,000 per QALY gained was only 16%. Sensitivity analyses combining variations in equipment price and support cost parameters yielded a cost-effectiveness ratio of £161,000 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: while QALY gain in the intervention group was similar to that for controls, social and health services costs were higher. Second-generation telecare did not appear to be a cost-effective addition to usual care, assuming a commonly accepted willingness to pay for QALYs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 43002091.

The effect of telecare on the quality of life and psychological well-being of elderly recipients of social care over a 12-month period: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: home-based telecare (TC) is utilised to manage risks of independent living and provide prompt emergency responses. This study examined the effect of TC on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients receiving social care. DESIGN: a study of participant-reported outcomes [the Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) Telecare Questionnaire Study; baseline n = 1,189] was nested in a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of TC (the WSD Telecare trial), held across three English Local Authorities. General practice (GP) was the unit of randomisation and TC was compared with usual care (UC). METHODS: participant-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline, short-term (4 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up, assessing generic HRQoL, anxiety and depressive symptoms. Primary intention-to-treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness and were conducted using multilevel models to control for GP clustering and covariates for participants who completed questionnaire measures at baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (n = 873). RESULTS: analyses found significant differences between TC and UC on Short Form-12 mental component scores (P < 0.05), with parameter estimates indicating being a member of the TC trial-arm increases mental component scores (UC-adjusted mean = 40.52; TC-adjusted mean = 43.69). Additional significant analyses revealed, time effects on EQ5D (decreasing over time) and depressive symptoms (increasing over time). CONCLUSIONS: TC potentially contributes to the amelioration in the decline in users' mental HRQoL over a 12-month period. TC may not transform the lives of its users, but it may afford small relative benefits on some psychological and HRQOL outcomes relative to users who only receive UC. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN 43002091.

Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the costs and cost effectiveness of telehealth in addition to standard support and treatment, compared with standard support and treatment. DESIGN: Economic evaluation nested in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community based telehealth intervention in three local authority areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: 3230 people with a long term condition (heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes) were recruited into the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth trial between May 2008 and December 2009. Of participants taking part in the Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study examining acceptability, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, 845 were randomised to telehealth and 728 to usual care. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention participants received a package of telehealth equipment and monitoring services for 12 months, in addition to the standard health and social care services available in their area. Controls received usual health and social care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome for the cost effectiveness analysis was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: We undertook net benefit analyses of costs and outcomes for 965 patients (534 receiving telehealth; 431 usual care). The adjusted mean difference in QALY gain between groups at 12 months was 0.012. Total health and social care costs (including direct costs of the intervention) for the three months before 12 month interview were £1390 (€1610; $2150) and £1596 for the usual care and telehealth groups, respectively. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were generated to examine decision uncertainty in the analysis surrounding the value of the cost effectiveness threshold. The incremental cost per QALY of telehealth when added to usual care was £92 000. With this amount, the probability of cost effectiveness was low (11% at willingness to pay threshold of £30 000; >50% only if the threshold exceeded about £90 000). In sensitivity analyses, telehealth costs remained slightly (non-significantly) higher than usual care costs, even after assuming that equipment prices fell by 80% or telehealth services operated at maximum capacity. However, the most optimistic scenario (combining reduced equipment prices with maximum operating capacity) eliminated this group difference (cost effectiveness ratio £12 000 per QALY). CONCLUSIONS: The QALY gain by patients using telehealth in addition to usual care was similar to that by patients receiving usual care only, and total costs associated with the telehealth intervention were higher. Telehealth does not seem to be a cost effective addition to standard support and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43002091.

Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the impact of telecare on the use of social and health care. Part of the evaluation of the Whole Systems Demonstrator trial. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: a total of 2,600 people with social care needs were recruited from 217 general practices in three areas in England. DESIGN: a cluster randomised trial comparing telecare with usual care, general practice being the unit of randomisation. Participants were followed up for 12 months and analyses were conducted as intention-to-treat. DATA SOURCES: trial data were linked at the person level to administrative data sets on care funded at least in part by local authorities or the National Health Service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the proportion of people admitted to hospital within 12 months. Secondary endpoints included mortality, rates of secondary care use (seven different metrics), contacts with general practitioners and practice nurses, proportion of people admitted to permanent residential or nursing care, weeks in domiciliary social care and notional costs. RESULTS: 46.8% of intervention participants were admitted to hospital, compared with 49.2% of controls. Unadjusted differences were not statistically significant (odds ratio: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75-1.07, P = 0.211). They reached statistical significance after adjusting for baseline covariates, but this was not replicated when adjusting for the predictive risk score. Secondary metrics including impacts on social care use were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: telecare as implemented in the Whole Systems Demonstrator trial did not lead to significant reductions in service use, at least in terms of results assessed over 12 months.