Cited by 28Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units

Economic evaluation of nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes compared with standard care: the PRaCTICaL trial

Hernández, R. A., Jenkinson, D., Vale, L., Cuthbertson, B. H.·2014·The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract

Objective Following intensive care discharge, many patients suffer severe physical and psychological morbidity and a continuing high use of health services. Follow-up programmes have been proposed to improve the outcomes for these patients. We tested the hypothesis that nurse-led intensive care follow-up programmes are cost-effective.Methods A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of nurse-led intensive care unit follow-up programmes versus standard care. A cost-utility analysis was conducted after 12 months' follow-up to compare the two interventions. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the UK NHS and outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) based upon responses to the EQ-5D administered at baseline, 6 and 12 months.Results A total of 286 patients were recruited to the trial. Total mean cost was £ 5,789 for standard care and £ 7,577 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted difference in means was £ 2,435 [95 % confidence interval (CI) -297 to 5,566]. Mean QALYs were 0.58 for standard care and 0.60 for the discharge clinic. The adjusted mean difference was -0.003 (95 % CI -0.066 to 0.060). If society were willing to pay £ 20,000 per QALY then there would be a 93 % chance that standard care would be considered most efficient.Conclusions A nurse-led intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up programme showed no evidence of being cost-effective at 12 months. Further work should focus on evidence-based development of discharge clinic services and current ICU follow-up programmes should review their practice in light of these results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10198-013-0470-7

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hernández, R. A., Jenkinson, D., Vale, L., & Cuthbertson, B. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Vale, L.
Venue
The European Journal of Health Economics
Published
2013-03-28
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
243-252
ISSN
  • 1439-3972 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-7598
  • 1618-7601
OpenAlex
W1997592243
Cited by
28
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The European Journal of Health Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MR/K02325X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Keywords
intensive care unit discharge, cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life years, critical illness survivors, EQ-5D, NHS costs
MeSH terms
Continuity of Patient Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Critical Care, United Kingdom, Health Services, Humans, Nurses, Patient Care Management, Quality of Life, State Medicine, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review