TY - JOUR
T1 - Occupational therapy compared with social work assessment for older people. An economic evaluation alongside the CAMELOT randomised controlled trial
AU - Flood, Chris
AU - Mugford, Miranda
AU - Stewart, Sandra
AU - Harvey, Ian
AU - Poland, Fiona
AU - Lloyd-Smith, Walter
PY - 2004/11/10
Y1 - 2004/11/10
N2 - Objectives: To compare costs and outcome of occupational therapy-led assessment with social worker-led assessment of older people, in terms of their independence and quality of life. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. The analysis took viewpoints of health services and patients. The primary outcome measure for cost-effectiveness was dependency using the Community Dependency Index (CDI). Secondary outcomes included utility scores based on the EuroQoL (EQ-5D). Resource use was measured for each patient, from clinical records and from patient carer interviews at 8 months. Unit costs of health and social care resources were derived from local sources and national datasets. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: There were no differences between the two arms of the trial in terms of cost-effectiveness. There is an apparent increase in mean cost per case for the occupational therapy arm but this is not statistically significant (mean difference in cost per case £542, 95% CI £434-1,519). Mean total costs of care per participant were £4,379 and £3,837 for the occupational therapy and social work arms, respectively. At best the intervention would improve outcomes at a cost of £14,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The probability of such an outcome was <50%. Conclusions: From a policy perspective, the lack of difference in clinical and cost-effectiveness means that either a social work or an occupational therapy service is successful in making care assessments that enable an older person to remain in their own home.
AB - Objectives: To compare costs and outcome of occupational therapy-led assessment with social worker-led assessment of older people, in terms of their independence and quality of life. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. The analysis took viewpoints of health services and patients. The primary outcome measure for cost-effectiveness was dependency using the Community Dependency Index (CDI). Secondary outcomes included utility scores based on the EuroQoL (EQ-5D). Resource use was measured for each patient, from clinical records and from patient carer interviews at 8 months. Unit costs of health and social care resources were derived from local sources and national datasets. Cost-effectiveness was analysed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: There were no differences between the two arms of the trial in terms of cost-effectiveness. There is an apparent increase in mean cost per case for the occupational therapy arm but this is not statistically significant (mean difference in cost per case £542, 95% CI £434-1,519). Mean total costs of care per participant were £4,379 and £3,837 for the occupational therapy and social work arms, respectively. At best the intervention would improve outcomes at a cost of £14,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The probability of such an outcome was <50%. Conclusions: From a policy perspective, the lack of difference in clinical and cost-effectiveness means that either a social work or an occupational therapy service is successful in making care assessments that enable an older person to remain in their own home.
KW - Community
KW - Economic evaluation
KW - Elderly
KW - Occupational therapy
KW - Older people
KW - Randomised controlled trial
UR - https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article/34/1/47/40226
U2 - 10.1093/ageing/afh232
DO - 10.1093/ageing/afh232
M3 - Article
C2 - 15537680
AN - SCOPUS:12144275661
SN - 0002-0729
VL - 34
SP - 47
EP - 52
JO - Age and Ageing
JF - Age and Ageing
IS - 1
ER -