Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMeads, DM
dc.contributor.authorMartin, A
dc.contributor.authorGriffiths, A
dc.contributor.authorKelley, R
dc.contributor.authorCreese, B
dc.contributor.authorRobinson, L
dc.contributor.authorMcDermid, J
dc.contributor.authorWalwyn, R
dc.contributor.authorBallard, C
dc.contributor.authorSurr, CA
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-15T09:27:24Z
dc.date.issued2019-11-08
dc.description.abstractBackground: Behaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care home residents with dementia and increase health care use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting. Methods: RCT data over 16 months from English care home residents with dementia (intervention n = 418; control n = 308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty. Results: Costs were higher in the intervention arm than control arm (incremental = £1,479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental = 0.024) in favour of DCM. The base case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (p<0.20 where λ=£20,000) of being cost-effective versus control. Conclusion: DCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high cost individuals and capturing utility in this group.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 8 November 2019en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber11/15/13en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/39199
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen_GB
dc.titleCost-Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping in Care-Home Settings: Evaluation of a Randomised Controlled Trialen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-10-15T09:27:24Z
dc.identifier.issn1175-5652
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Springer Verlag via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalApplied Health Economics and Health Policyen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-10-15
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-10-15
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-10-15T09:09:51Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2025-03-06T20:29:09Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record