TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of adding psychomotor therapy to a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic pain
AU - Van Der Maas, Lia C.C.
AU - Bosmans, Judith E.
AU - Van Tulder, Maurits W.
AU - Janssen, Thomas W.J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s).
PY - 2020/12/28
Y1 - 2020/12/28
N2 - Introduction: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness (CE) of a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program (treatment as usual [TAU]) with and without psychomotor therapy (PMT) for chronic pain patients. Methods: Chronic pain patients were assigned to TAU + PMT or TAU using cluster randomization. Clinical outcomes measured were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), pain-related disability, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Uncertainty surrounding incremental CE ratios was estimated using bootstrapping and presented in CE planes and CE acceptability curves. Results: Ninety-four chronic pain patients (n = 49 TAU + PMT and n = 45 TAU) were included. There were no significant differences in HRQOL, Pain Disability Index, and QALYs between TAU + PMT and TAU. Direct costs in TAU + PMT were significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €3327, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1329; 5506). However, total societal costs in TAU + PMT were not significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €642, 95% CI -3323; 4373). CE analyses showed that TAU + PMT was not cost-effective in comparison with TAU. Conclusions: Adding PMT to a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program is not considered cost-effective in comparison with a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program alone. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and high drop-out rate.
AB - Introduction: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness (CE) of a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program (treatment as usual [TAU]) with and without psychomotor therapy (PMT) for chronic pain patients. Methods: Chronic pain patients were assigned to TAU + PMT or TAU using cluster randomization. Clinical outcomes measured were health-related quality of life (HRQOL), pain-related disability, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Multiple imputation was used for missing data. Uncertainty surrounding incremental CE ratios was estimated using bootstrapping and presented in CE planes and CE acceptability curves. Results: Ninety-four chronic pain patients (n = 49 TAU + PMT and n = 45 TAU) were included. There were no significant differences in HRQOL, Pain Disability Index, and QALYs between TAU + PMT and TAU. Direct costs in TAU + PMT were significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €3327, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1329; 5506). However, total societal costs in TAU + PMT were not significantly higher than in TAU (mean difference €642, 95% CI -3323; 4373). CE analyses showed that TAU + PMT was not cost-effective in comparison with TAU. Conclusions: Adding PMT to a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program is not considered cost-effective in comparison with a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program alone. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size and high drop-out rate.
KW - Chronic pain
KW - Cost-effectiveness
KW - Multidisciplinary rehabilitation
KW - Psychomotor therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174986127&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85174986127&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.33393/grhta.2020.2031
DO - 10.33393/grhta.2020.2031
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85174986127
SN - 2284-2403
VL - 7
SP - 124
EP - 130
JO - Global and Regional Health Technology Assessment
JF - Global and Regional Health Technology Assessment
IS - 1
ER -