Cited by 30Clinical practice guidelines implementationMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Economic Evaluation of Active Implementation versus Guideline Dissemination for Evidence-Based Care of Acute Low-Back Pain in a General Practice Setting

Open access
Mortimer, Duncan, French, Simon D., McKenzie, Joanne E., O′Connor, Denise A., Green, Sally E.·2013·PLoS ONE

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0075647

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mortimer, D., French, S. D., McKenzie, J. E., O′Connor, D. A., & Green, S. E.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Mortimer, Duncan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-10-11
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e75647
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977128121
Cited by
30
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (334060)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
acute low back pain, guideline implementation, guideline dissemination, cost-effectiveness, general practice, health care utilization, evidence-based care
MeSH terms
Australia, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Radiography, Referral and Consultation, Low Back Pain, Practice Guidelines as Topic, General Practice

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