Objective: To use cost-consequences analysis to evaluate rehabilitation, and to discuss some practical limitations.
Design: Case study of a cost-consequences analysis.
Setting: Day hospital.
Subjects: People with Parkinson's disease without major cognitive loss, and their carers.
Intervention: A programme of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, delivered for one day per week over six weeks, and including 2 h of individual therapy (physical, occupational, speech and language, specialist nurse) and group activities on each occasion.
Main measures: Costs: direct and overhead costs of treatment; participant travel. Consequences: patient outcomes (mobility, speech and language, disability, psychological well-being, health-related quality of life); carer outcomes (psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, strain); social service utilization; satisfaction.
Results: In this example the main costs were facility's overheads and hospital-provided transport. The consequences of the intervention were improved immediate outcomes for patients that diminished over four months, discovery of unmet social services need, high satisfaction. No benefits for carers were observed.
Conclusion: A cost-consequences analysis provides a clear descriptive summary for decision-makers that is easier to interpret than cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis. It is a useful technique in rehabilitation research where multiple outcomes and several perspectives (health service, patient, carer) are relevant. However limitations remain: it is difficult to capture all consequences because of data deficiencies and long-term effects; evaluations of individual interventions are partial and do not guarantee economic rationality; local studies may not be generalizable; fixed protocols impede the evaluation of alternative service configurations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for economic evaluation of healthcare programmes, second edition. Oxford University Press, 1997.
2.
2 Drummond M. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: problems and potential. J Rheumatol1995; 37:33-40.
3.
3 Byford S, Sefton T. First aid: lessons from health economics for economic evaluation in social welfare. London School of Economics2002, Health and Social Care Discussion Paper, 4.
4.
4 Coast J, Hensher M, Mulligan JA, Shepperd S, Jones JU. Conceptual and practical difficulties with the economic evaluation of health services developments. J Health Serv Res Poliicy2000; 5:42-48.
5.
5 Donaldson C, Currie G, Milton C. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care: contra-indications. BMJ2002; 325: 891-894.
6.
6 Kernick D. University departments of health service research are good for one thing-closure. Health Serv J2004; Oct 21: 21-21.
7.
7 Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society's health values?BMJ2004; 329: 1233-1236.
8.
8 Kaye J. Rehabilitation programme for people with Parkinson's Disease. Elderly Care1999; 3:34-36.
9.
9 Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology1967; 17: 427-442.
10.
10 Trend P, Kaye J, Gage H, Owen C, Wade D. Short-term effectiveness of intensivness multi-disciplinary rehabilitation for people with Parkinson's disease and their carers, Clin Rehabil2002; 16: 717-725.
11.
11 Gorsky R, Haddix A, Shaffer P. Cost of an intervention. In Haddix A, Teutsch S, Shaffer P, Dunet D eds. Prevention effectiveness: a guide to decision analysis and economic evaluation. Oxford University Press, 1996: 57-75.
12.
12 Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care 1999. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, 2000.
13.
13 Wade D, Gage H, Owen C, Trend P, Grossman C, Kaye J. Multi disciplinary rehabilitation for people with Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2003; 74: 158-162.
14.
14 O'Sullivan, JD, Said, CM, Dillon, LC et al. Gout analysis in patients with Parkinson's diseases and motor fluctuations: influence of levadopa and comparison with other measures of motor fluctuation. Mov Disord1998; 13: 900-906.
16 Brown, RG, MacCarthy B, Jahanshahi M et al. Accuracy of self-reported disability in patients with Parkinsonism. Arch Neurol1989; 46: 955-959.
17.
17 Zigmond A, Snaith R. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand1983; 67: 361-370.
18.
18 Kind P. The Euroqol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In Spiker B ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials, second edition. Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 191-201.
19.
19 Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V et al. The Parkinson's disease questionnaire (PD4-39): development and validation of a Parkinson's disease summary index score. Age Ageing1997; 26: 353-357.
20.
20 Robinsons BC. Validation of a caregiver strain index. J Gerentol1983; 38: 344-348.
21.
21 Kaste M, Fogelholm R, Rissanen A. Economic burden of stroke and the evaluation of new therapies. Public Health1998; 112: 103-112.
22.
22 Drummond M, Torrance G, Mason J. Cost-effectiveness league tables: more harm than good. Soc Sci Med1993; 37:33-34.
23.
23 Naylor C, Llewellyn-Thomas H. Utilities and preferences for health states: time for a pragmatic approach. J Health Serv Res Policy1998; 3: 129-131.
24.
24 Keeler E, Robalino D, Frank J, Hirsch S, Maly R, Reuben D. Cost-effectiveness of outpatient geriatric assessement with an intervention to increse adherence. Med Care1999; 37: 1199-1202.
25.
25 Gage H, Storey L. The effectiveness of rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of the available evidence. Clin Rehabil2004; 18: 463-482.
26.
26 Torgerson D, Spencer A, Marginal costs and benefits. BMJ1996; 31:35-36.
27.
27 Towse A, Pritchard C, Devlin N eds. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: economic and ethical issues. King's Fund, Office of Health Economics, 2002.
28.
28 Gerard K. An appraisal of the cost-effectiveness of alternative day care settings for frail elderly people. Age Ageing1988; 17: 311-318.
