Economic analysis of the 'Take Charge' intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial. 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. Clinical Rehabilitation, 36(2):240–250, February, 2022. doi abstract bibtex 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.
@article{te_ao_economic_2022,
title = {Economic analysis of the '{Take} {Charge}' intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},
volume = {36},
issn = {1477-0873},
shorttitle = {Economic analysis of the '{Take} {Charge}' intervention for people following stroke},
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 = {eng},
number = {2},
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 = feb,
year = {2022},
pmid = {34414801},
keywords = {Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Stroke, Stroke rehabilitation, Surveys and Questionnaires, cost-effective, cost-utility analysis, self-management},
pages = {240--250},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"9wnYxBeQKGynoE8hM","bibbaseid":"teao-harwood-fu-weatherall-mcpherson-taylor-mcrae-thomson-etal-economicanalysisofthetakechargeinterventionforpeoplefollowingstrokeresultsfromarandomisedtrial-2022","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","volume":"36","issn":"1477-0873","shorttitle":"Economic analysis of the 'Take Charge' intervention for people following stroke","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":"eng","number":"2","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":"February","year":"2022","pmid":"34414801","keywords":"Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Stroke, Stroke rehabilitation, Surveys and Questionnaires, cost-effective, cost-utility analysis, self-management","pages":"240–250","bibtex":"@article{te_ao_economic_2022,\n\ttitle = {Economic analysis of the '{Take} {Charge}' intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},\n\tvolume = {36},\n\tissn = {1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Economic analysis of the '{Take} {Charge}' intervention for people following stroke},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.\nDESIGN: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment.\nSETTING: Community.\nPARTICIPANTS: Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\nINTERVENTIONS: 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).\nMEASURES: 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.\nRESULTS: 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\\%.\nCONCLUSION: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {2},\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 = feb,\n\tyear = {2022},\n\tpmid = {34414801},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Quality of Life, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Stroke, Stroke rehabilitation, Surveys and Questionnaires, cost-effective, cost-utility analysis, self-management},\n\tpages = {240--250},\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_2022","id":"te_ao_economic_2022","bibbaseid":"teao-harwood-fu-weatherall-mcpherson-taylor-mcrae-thomson-etal-economicanalysisofthetakechargeinterventionforpeoplefollowingstrokeresultsfromarandomisedtrial-2022","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Adult","Cost-Benefit Analysis","Humans","Quality of Life","Quality-Adjusted Life Years","Stroke","Stroke rehabilitation","Surveys and Questionnaires","cost-effective","cost-utility analysis","self-management"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/6607533/collections/VKGURBGN/items?key=hSjrOPQRRHHWY81SKs6CEz45&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["upP78A3qvEd6tbHFm","zpWcq5jS35za3AmLx"],"keywords":["adult","cost-benefit analysis","humans","quality of life","quality-adjusted life years","stroke","stroke rehabilitation","surveys and questionnaires","cost-effective","cost-utility analysis","self-management"],"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":2022}