Search

Objective: To assess the costs, effects, and cost-utility of an accelerated physiotherapy programme versus a standard physiotherapy programme following resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Design: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial. Setting: A UK National Health Service hospital and patients' homes. Subjects: A total of 80 male resurfacing hip arthroplasty patients randomized post procedure to one of the two programmes. Interventions: The accelerated physiotherapy programme commenced in hospital with patients being fully weight bearing, without hip precautions, and following a range of exercises facilitating gait re-education, balance, and lower limb strength. Standard physiotherapy commenced in hospital, but hip precautions were used and exercises were only partially weight bearing. In both groups, patients continued with their exercises at home for an eight-week period. Main measures: Data on healthcare contacts were collected from patients to 12 months and costed using unit costs from national sources. Information was also collected on patients' costs. Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire and used to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to 12 months. Mean costs and QALYs for each trial arm were compared. Results: On average, the accelerated physiotherapy programme was less expensive (mean cost difference −£200; 95% confidence interval: −£656 to £255) and more effective (mean QALY difference 0.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.21) than standard physiotherapy and had a high probability of being cost-effective. Conclusion: From the National Health Service perspective, an accelerated physiotherapy programme for male patients undergoing revision of total hip arthroplasty (RHA) is very likely to be cost-effective when compared to a standard physiotherapy programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether publically funded ‘reablement services’ have any effect on patient health or use of services. Design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies in which reablement interventions were compared with no care or usual care in people referred to public-funded personal care services. Data sources included: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EPOC register of studies, trials registers, Medline, EMBASE, and CINHAL. Searches were from 2000 up to end February 2015. Setting: Not applicable. Participants: Investigators’ definition of the target population for reablement interventions. Main outcome measures: Use of publically funded personal care services and dependence in personal activities of daily living. Results: We found no studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria that assessed the effectiveness of reablement interventions. We did note the lack of an agreed understanding of the nature of reablement. Conclusions: Reablement is an ill-defined intervention targeted towards an ill-defined and potentially highly heterogeneous population/patient group. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective at either of its goals; increasing personal independence or reducing use of personal care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]