@article{te_ao_economic_2021,
	title = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},
	issn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},
	shorttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke},
	url = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727},
	doi = {10.1177/02692155211040727},
	abstract = {Objective:
              To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.
            
            
              Design:
              An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment
            
            
              Setting:
              Community.
            
            
              Participants:
              Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.
            
            
              Interventions:
              The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions).
            
            
              Measures:
              The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.
            
            
              Results:
              One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95\% CI) \$US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and \$6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95\% CI) difference \$ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95\% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95\% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was \$US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of \$US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99\%.
            
            
              Conclusion:
              Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.},
	language = {en},
	urldate = {2021-09-09},
	journal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},
	author = {Te Ao, Braden and Harwood, Matire and Fu, Vivian and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith and McNaughton, Harry},
	month = aug,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {026921552110407},
}

{"_id":"ir33W2qM3bL7BfAzH","bibbaseid":"teao-harwood-fu-weatherall-mcpherson-taylor-mcrae-thomson-etal-economicanalysisofthetakechargeinterventionforpeoplefollowingstrokeresultsfromarandomisedtrial-2021","author_short":["Te Ao, B.","Harwood, M.","Fu, V.","Weatherall, M.","McPherson, K.","Taylor, W. J","McRae, A.","Thomson, T.","Gommans, J.","Green, G.","Ranta, A.","Hanger, C.","Riley, J.","McNaughton, H."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial","issn":"0269-2155, 1477-0873","shorttitle":"Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke","url":"http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727","doi":"10.1177/02692155211040727","abstract":"Objective: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment Setting: Community. Participants: Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions). Measures: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Results: One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%. Conclusion: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.","language":"en","urldate":"2021-09-09","journal":"Clinical Rehabilitation","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Te","Ao"],"firstnames":["Braden"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Harwood"],"firstnames":["Matire"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Fu"],"firstnames":["Vivian"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Weatherall"],"firstnames":["Mark"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["McPherson"],"firstnames":["Kathryn"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Taylor"],"firstnames":["William","J"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["McRae"],"firstnames":["Anna"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Thomson"],"firstnames":["Tom"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gommans"],"firstnames":["John"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Green"],"firstnames":["Geoff"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ranta"],"firstnames":["Annemarei"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hanger"],"firstnames":["Carl"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Riley"],"firstnames":["Judith"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["McNaughton"],"firstnames":["Harry"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"August","year":"2021","pages":"026921552110407","bibtex":"@article{te_ao_economic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tabstract = {Objective:\n To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.\n \n \n Design:\n An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment\n \n \n Setting:\n Community.\n \n \n Participants:\n Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\n \n \n Interventions:\n The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions).\n \n \n Measures:\n The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.\n \n \n Results:\n One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95\\% CI) \\$US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and \\$6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference \\$ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95\\% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was \\$US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of \\$US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99\\%.\n \n \n Conclusion:\n Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-09-09},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Te Ao, Braden and Harwood, Matire and Fu, Vivian and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {026921552110407},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Te Ao, B.","Harwood, M.","Fu, V.","Weatherall, M.","McPherson, K.","Taylor, W. J","McRae, A.","Thomson, T.","Gommans, J.","Green, G.","Ranta, A.","Hanger, C.","Riley, J.","McNaughton, H."],"key":"te_ao_economic_2021","id":"te_ao_economic_2021","bibbaseid":"teao-harwood-fu-weatherall-mcpherson-taylor-mcrae-thomson-etal-economicanalysisofthetakechargeinterventionforpeoplefollowingstrokeresultsfromarandomisedtrial-2021","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":2},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/6607533/collections/NYG2RI7X/items?key=hSjrOPQRRHHWY81SKs6CEz45&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["KHcnSjJ2bxXY5NrcM","EJNmxqZX8tAuYtNBY","ydy8iPhP2TsFttgY7","6SkqXiGdfnEhkfeWg","gYp5LQXkoiKhbuLwC","GtKrFT3dvoJZ2GR6c","BvvFw2zRfGrfhQ6x4","ZJ4j4Apddh3MpQnDj"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["economic","analysis","take","charge","intervention","people","following","stroke","results","randomised","trial","te ao","harwood","fu","weatherall","mcpherson","taylor","mcrae","thomson","gommans","green","ranta","hanger","riley","mcnaughton"],"title":"Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial","year":2021,"downloads":2}