Cost-effectiveness of an education and activation program for patients with acute and subacute shoulder complaints compared to usual care

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options.

CONCLUSION

This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The choice of the most appropriate approach to valuing productivity loss has received much debate in the literature. The friction cost approach has been proposed as a more appropriate alternative to the human capital approach when valuing productivity loss, although its application remains limited. This study reviews application of the friction cost approach in health economic studies and examines how its use varies in practice across different country settings.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify economic evaluation studies that have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach and published in English from 1996 to 2013. A standard template was developed and used to extract information from studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The search yielded 46 studies from 12 countries. Of these, 28 were from the Netherlands. Thirty-five studies reported the length of friction period used, with only 16 stating explicitly the source of the friction period. Nine studies reported the elasticity correction factor used. The reported friction cost approach methods used to derive productivity costs varied in quality across studies from different countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Few health economic studies have estimated productivity costs using the friction cost approach. The estimation and reporting of productivity costs using this method appears to differ in quality by country. The review reveals gaps and lack of clarity in reporting of methods for friction cost evaluation. Generating reporting guidelines and country-specific parameters for the friction cost approach is recommended if increased application and accuracy of the method is to be realized.

Economic evaluations in shoulder pathologies: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations provide decision makers with a tool for reducing health care costs because they assess both the costs and consequences of health care interventions. This study reviewed the quality of published economic evaluations for shoulder pathologies.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify articles published from 1980 to 2010 that contained "cost" or "economic" combined with terms for several shoulder disorders and treatments. We selected studies that fit the definition of 1 of the 4 routinely performed economic evaluations: cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit analyses. Study quality was determined by measuring adherence to 6 established health economic principles, as described in the literature.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 942 studies. Of these, 32 were determined to be economic evaluations, and 53% of the economic evaluations were published from 2005 to 2010. Only 8 of the 32 studies (25%) adhered to all 6 health economic principles. Publication in a nonsurgical journal (P < .05) or in more recent years (P < .01) was significantly associated with higher quality.

CONCLUSION

Future health care resource allocation will likely be based on the economic feasibility of treatments. Although the number and quality of economic evaluations of shoulder disorders have risen in recent years, the current state of the literature is poor. Given that availability of such data may factor in private and public reimbursement decisions, there is a clear demand for more rigorous economic evaluations.

Costs of shoulder pain and resource use in primary health care: a cost-of-illness study in Sweden

Background

Painful shoulders pose a substantial socioeconomic burden. A prospective cost-of-illness study was performed to assess the costs associated with healthcare use and loss of productivity in patients with shoulder pain in primary health care in Sweden.

Methods

The study was performed in western Sweden, in a region with 24 000 inhabitants. Data were collected during six months from electronic patient records at three primary healthcare centres in two municipalities. All patients between 20 and 64 years of age who presented with shoulder pain to a general practitioner or a physiotherapist were included. Diagnostic codes were used for selection, and the cases were manually controlled. The cost for sick leave was calculated according to the human capital approach. Sensitivity analysis was used to explore uncertainty in various factors used in the model.

Results

204 (103 women) patients, mean age 48 (SD 11) years, were registered. Half of the cases were closed within six weeks, whereas 32 patients (16%) remained in the system for more than six months. A fifth of the patients were responsible for 91% of the total costs, and for 44% of the healthcare costs. The mean healthcare cost per patient was €326 (SD 389) during six months. Physiotherapy treatments accounted for 60%. The costs for sick leave contributed to 84% of the total costs. The mean annual total cost was €4139 per patient. Estimated costs for secondary care increased the total costs by one third.

Conclusions

The model applied in this study provides valuable information that can be used in cost evaluations. Costs for secondary care and particularly for sick leave have a major influence on total costs and interventions that can reduce long periods of sick leave are warranted.

Effect of an education and activation programme on functional limitations and patient-perceived recovery in acute and sub-acute shoulder complaints - a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The education and activation programme (EAP) aims at coping with psychosocial determinants to prevent the development of chronic shoulder complaints (SCs). The effect of the EAP on functional limitations and patient-perceived recovery after 6 and 26 weeks is evaluated in a randomised clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients with SCs present at rest or elicited by movement and lasting no longer than 3 months were allocated at random to either EAP as an addition to usual care (UC), or to UC only. Measurements were taken at baseline and after 6 and 26 weeks and were analysed by means of multilevel analysis for the group effect. EAP was administered by GPs or by an ambulant therapist (CDB). Patients in the UC group were given UC by their own GP.

RESULTS

Multilevel analysis failed to show a significant effect of the EAP on either functional limitations or patient-perceived recovery. Analysis showed coincidentally a relation between catastrophising at baseline and functional limitations.

CONCLUSION

The EAP has no significant effect on the outcome of SCs after 6 and 26 weeks. The relation between catastrophising at baseline and functional limitations suggests that an intervention focusing specifically on catastrophising may be more successful in reducing functional limitations in the long term. Further research is however needed to evaluate the effect of catastrophising at baseline on the course of SCs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71777817.