PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Results from the KORINNA study.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

EVA: Veröffentlichen

Neuer EVA Antrag

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Seidl, H. ; Hunger, M. ; Leidl, R. ; Meisinger, C. ; Wende, R.* ; Kuch, B.* ; Holle, R.

Cost-effectiveness of nurse-based case management versus usual care for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Results from the KORINNA study.

Eur. J. Health Econ. 16, 671-681 (2015)

DOI

PMC

Open Access Green möglich sobald Postprint bei der ZB eingereicht worden ist.

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Objectives We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a case management intervention by trained nurses in elderly (≥65 years) patients with myocardial infarction from a societal perspective. Methods The intervention and observation period spanned 1 year and 329 participants were enrolled. The intervention consisted of at least one home visit and quarterly telephone calls. Data on resource use and quality of life were collected quarterly. The primary measurements of effect were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), based on the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) health utilities from the German time trade-off. The secondary measurements were EQ-5D-3L utility values and patients' self-rated health states according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) among survivors. To estimate mean differences, a linear regression model was used for QALYs and a gamma model for costs. Health states among the survivors were analysed using linear mixed models. To assess the impact of different health state valuation methods, VAS-adjusted life years were constructed. Results The mean difference in QALYs was small and not significant (-0.0163; CI -0.0681-0.0354, p value: 0.536, n = 297). Among survivors, EQ-5D-3L utilities showed significant improvements within 6 months in the intervention group (0.051; CI 0.0028-0.0989; p value: 0.0379, n = 280) but returned towards baseline levels by month 12. The mean improvement in self-rated health (VAS) within 1 year was significantly larger in the intervention group (+9.2, CI 4.665-13.766, p value: <0.0001, n = 266). The overall cost difference was -€17.61 (CI - €2,601-€2,615; p value: 0.9856, n = 297). The difference in VAS-adjusted life years was 0.0378 (CI -0.0040-0.0796, p value: 0.0759, n = 297). Conclusions This study could not provide evidence to conclude that the case management intervention was an effective and cost-effective alternative to usual care within a time horizon of 1 year.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

1.913

1.114