Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Cost-effectiveness analysis of reformative Bobath rehabilitation versus traditional rehabilitation in post-stroke syndrome

What stroke survivor fucking cares about cost effectiveness? They only care about results, which aren't even mentioned here.  And why are we even looking at Bobath, it doesn't even work?

 

Cost-effectiveness analysis of reformative Bobath rehabilitation versus traditional rehabilitation in post-stroke syndrome

Runhua Geng 1,2 * , Jinhao Zhang
3* , Fangbing Lv 4 , Qiangsan Sun 5 1 School of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China; Departments of 2 Rehabilitation, 4 Pharmacy, Dezhou People’s Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China; 3 Dezhou United Hospital, Dezhou, Shandong, China; 5 The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China. * Equal contributors and co-first authors. Received July 11, 2018; Accepted August 24, 2018; Epub November 15, 2018; Published November 30, 2018

Abstract: 

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cost utility of Bobath rehabilitation with that of traditional treatment of post-stroke syndrome in order to evaluate whether it can be applied to a generalized population in most regions in China.
Methods: The Markov model was used to analyze the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and 5-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Data were obtained from a total of 2000 patients from 2 large-scale complex hospitals in Beijing, China. All eligible patients were aged between 18 and 80 years, in the post-stroke stage, and relatively serious. The clinical data were from 2 phase III clinical hospitals in Beijing. Moreover, the cost data were from the Chinese healthcare system and these hospitals. In the study, one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and Monte-Carlo analysis were performed.
Result: In the study, the model suggested that the Bobath arm is better than the traditional one; the cumulative costs of the two arms were ¥ 136,782.85 and ¥ 33,597.94, respectively, and the QALYs were 1.222 and 0.279, respectively. The ICER was ¥ 109,421.96/QALY, which was less than threefolds of the mean gross domestic product of China, indicating the cost-effectiveness of Bobath rehabilitation. In the one-way analysis, the change in cost and utility did not influence the outcome. Moreover, in the Monte-Carlo analysis, the probability distribution of incremental cost, incremental utility, and ICER had a beta- and gamma-distribution.
Conclusions: The Bobath arm, which could be popularized in China, has better cost utility.

No comments:

Post a Comment