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)
Cost-effectiveness analysis of reformative Bobath rehabilitation versus traditional rehabilitation in post-stroke syndrome
Runhua Geng 1,2 * , Jinhao ZhangAbstract:
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