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?
- Bobath (27)
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.