Economic evaluation of active implementation versus guideline dissemination for evidence-based care of acute low-back pain in a general practice setting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone. Results The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of 135 per x-ray referral avoided (- 462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that - irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP) - we cannot be at least 95 confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1 - 8
Number of pages8
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume8
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Cite this

@article{dc15037430d84db09c6097d57c1ce13e,
title = "Economic evaluation of active implementation versus guideline dissemination for evidence-based care of acute low-back pain in a general practice setting",
abstract = "Introduction The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone. Results The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of 135 per x-ray referral avoided (- 462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that - irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP) - we cannot be at least 95 confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.",
author = "Mortimer, {Duncan Stuart} and Simon French and McKenzie, {Joanne Ellen} and O'Connor, {Denise Ann} and Green, {Sally Elizabeth}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0075647",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "1 -- 8",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of active implementation versus guideline dissemination for evidence-based care of acute low-back pain in a general practice setting

AU - Mortimer, Duncan Stuart

AU - French, Simon

AU - McKenzie, Joanne Ellen

AU - O'Connor, Denise Ann

AU - Green, Sally Elizabeth

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Introduction The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone. Results The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of 135 per x-ray referral avoided (- 462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that - irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP) - we cannot be at least 95 confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.

AB - Introduction The development and publication of clinical practice guidelines for acute low-back pain has resulted in evidence-based recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality and safety of care for acute low-back pain. Development and dissemination of guidelines may not, however, be sufficient to produce improvements in clinical practice; further investment in active implementation of guideline recommendations may be required. Further research is required to quantify the trade-off between the additional upfront cost of active implementation of guideline recommendations for low-back pain and any resulting improvements in clinical practice. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the IMPLEMENT trial from a health sector perspective to compare active implementation of guideline recommendations via the IMPLEMENT intervention (plus standard dissemination) against standard dissemination alone. Results The base-case analysis suggests that delivery of the IMPLEMENT intervention dominates standard dissemination (less costly and more effective), yielding savings of 135 per x-ray referral avoided (- 462.93/3.43). However, confidence intervals around point estimates for the primary outcome suggest that - irrespective of willingness to pay (WTP) - we cannot be at least 95 confident that the IMPLEMENT intervention differs in value from standard dissemination. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that moving beyond development and dissemination to active implementation entails a significant additional upfront investment that may not be offset by health gains and/or reductions in health service utilization of sufficient magnitude to render active implementation cost-effective.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0075647

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0075647

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 10

ER -