Cited by 13Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryAcute Ischemic Stroke Management

Cost analysis of the Communication and Low Mood (CALM) randomised trial of behavioural therapy for stroke patients with aphasia

Open access
Humphreys, Ioan, Thomas, Shirley, Phillips, Ceri, Lincoln, Nadina·2015·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of a behavioural therapy intervention shown to be clinically effective in comparison with usual care for stroke patients with aphasia. Design Randomised controlled trial with comparison of costs and calculation of incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Setting Community. Participants Participants identified as having low mood on either the Visual Analog Mood Scale sad item (≥50) or Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire Hospital version 21 (SADQH21) (≥6) were recruited. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to behavioural therapy or usual care using internet-based randomisation generated in advance of the study by a clinical trials unit. Main measures Outcomes were assessed at six months after randomisation, blind to group allocation. The costs were assessed from a service use questionnaire. Effectiveness was defined as the change in SADQH21 scores and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing the behavioural group with the usual care control group. The cost analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK NHS and Social Services. Results The greatest difference was in home help costs where there was a saving of £56.20 in the intervention group compared to an increase of £61.40 in the control group. At six months the SADQH21 score for the intervention group was 17.3 compared to the control group value of 20.4. This resulted in a mean increase of 0.7 in the control group, compared to a mean significant…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269215514537656

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Humphreys, I., Thomas, S., Phillips, C., & Lincoln, N.
Affiliations
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2014-06-18
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
30-41
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2108552575
Cited by
13
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Keywords
aphasia, stroke, behavior therapy, depression, depressive mood, cost-effectiveness, service utilization, resource utilization (health care)
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, State Medicine, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Mood Disorders, Stroke

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