Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Three-year cost analysis of function-centred versus pain-centred inpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain |
Bachmann S, Wieser S, Oesch P, Schmidhauser S, Knusel O, Kool J |
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2009 Nov;41(11):919-923 |
clinical trial |
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare costs of function- and pain-centred inpatient treatment in patients with chronic low back pain over 3 years of follow-up. DESIGN: Cost analysis of a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: A total of 174 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized to function- or pain-centred inpatient treatment. METHODS: Data on direct and indirect costs were gathered by questionnaires sent to patients, health insurance providers, employers, and the Swiss Disability Insurance Company. RESULTS: There was a non-significant difference in total medical costs after 3 years' follow-up. Total costs were Euro 77,305 in the function-centred inpatient treatment group and Euro 83,085 in the pain-centred inpatient treatment group. Likewise, indirect costs after 3 years from lost work days were non-significantly lower in the function-centred in-patient treatment group (Euro 6,354; 95% confidence interval -20,892 to 8,392) and direct medical costs were non-significantly higher in the function-centred inpatient treatment group (Euro 574; 95% confidence interval -862 to 2,011). CONCLUSION: The total costs of function-centred and pain-centred inpatient treatment were similar over the whole 3-year follow-up.
|