Top

BMC Health Services Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes

Authors: Richard L. Reed, Leigh Roeger, Billingsley Kaambwa

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

This study was a two-year follow-up evaluation of health service use and the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent general practice intervention targeted at people at high risk of poor health outcomes.

Methods

A two-year follow-up study of a clustered randomised controlled trial was conducted in South Australia during 2018–19, recruiting 1044 patients from three cohorts: children; adults (aged 18–64 years with two or more chronic diseases); and older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). Intervention group practices (n = 10) provided a multicomponent general practice intervention for 12 months. The intervention comprised patient enrolment to a preferred general practitioner (GP), access to longer GP appointments and timely general practice follow-up after episodes of hospital care. Health service outcomes included hospital use, specialist services and pharmaceuticals. The economic evaluation was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL 5 dimensions, 5 level utility scores and used an A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold for determining cost-effectiveness.

Results

Over the two years, there were no statistically significant intervention effects for health service use. In the total sample, the mean total cost per patient was greater for the intervention than control group, but the number of QALYs gained in the intervention group was higher. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was A$18,211 per QALY gained, which is lower than the A$50,000 per QALY gained threshold used in Australia. However, the intervention's cost-effectiveness was shown to differ by cohort. For the adult cohort, the intervention was associated with higher costs and lower QALYs gained (vs the total cohort) and was not cost-effective. For the older adults cohort, the intervention was associated with lower costs (A$540 per patient), due primarily to lower hospital costs, and was more effective than usual care.

Conclusions

The positive cost-effectiveness results from the 24-month follow-up warrant replication in a study appropriately powered for outcomes such as hospital use, with an intervention period of at least two years, and targeted to older people at high risk of poor health outcomes.

Available only for authorised users

van Weel C, Kidd MR. Why strengthening primary health care is essential to achieving universal health coverage. CMAJ. 2018;190(15):E463–6. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170784.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

McPake B, Mahal A. Addressing the needs of an aging population in the health system: The Australian case. Health Syst Reform. 2017;3(3):236–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/23288604.2017.1358796.CrossRefPubMed

Polin K, Hjortland M, Maresso A, van Ginneken E, Busse R, Quentin W. “Top-Three” health reforms in 31 high-income countries in 2018 and 2019: an expert informed overview. Health Policy. 2021;125(7):815–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.04.005.CrossRefPubMed

Huntley A, Lasserson D, Wye L, Morris R, Checkland K, England H, Salisbury C, Purdy S. Which features of primary care affect unscheduled secondary care use? A systematic review. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5): e004746. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004746.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van Walraven C, Oake N, Jennings A, Forster AJ. The association between continuity of care and outcomes: a systematic and critical review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(5):947–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01235.x.CrossRefPubMed

Wensing M, Szecsenyi J, Laux G. Continuity in general practice and hospitalization patterns: an observational study. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01361-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wilson A, Childs S. The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(485):1012–20.PubMedPubMedCentral

Bricard D, Or Z. Impact of early primary care follow-up after discharge on hospital readmissions. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20(4):611–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-018-1022-y.CrossRefPubMed

Wiest D, Yang Q, Wilson C, Dravid N. Outcomes of a citywide campaign to reduce Medicaid hospital readmissions with connection to primary care within 7 days of hospital discharge. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(1): e187369. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7369.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Ogarek J, Tjia J, Cutrona SL, Harrold LR, Gagne SJ, Preusse P, Donovan JL, Kanaan AO, et al. An electronic health record-based intervention to increase follow-up office visits and decrease rehospitalization in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(5):865–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12798.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Tammes P, Morris RW, Murphy M, Salisbury C. Is continuity of primary care declining in England? Practice-level longitudinal study from 2012 to 2017. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(707):e432–40. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp.2020.0935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Wilson AD, Childs S. Effects of interventions aimed at changing the length of primary care physicians' consultation. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2006;(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003540.pub2.

13.

Reed RL, Roeger L, Kwok YH, Kaambwa B, Allison S, Osborne RH. A general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes: the Flinders QUEST cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Med J Aust. 2022;216(9):469–75. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51484.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Harris AH, Hill SR, Chin G, Li JJ, Walkom E. The role of value for money in public insurance coverage decisions for drugs in Australia: a retrospective analysis 1994–2004. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(5):713–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08315247.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Javanparast S, Roeger L, Reed RL. General practice staff and patient experiences of a multicomponent intervention for people at high risk of poor health outcomes: a qualitative study. BMC Primary Care. 2024;25(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-02256-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E: Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013; 16(2):231–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002.

18.

Department of Health: Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 5). 2016. Available from https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/content/information/files/pbac-guidelines-version-5.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2024.

19.

Lu WS, Huang SL, Yang JF, Chen MH, Hsieh CL, Chou CY. Convergent validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D utility weights for stroke survivors. J Rehabil Med. 2016;48(4):346–51. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2069.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Golicki D, Niewada M, Buczek J, Karlinska A, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, Pickard AS. Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):845–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0834-1.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Nolan CM, Longworth L, Lord J, Canavan JL, Jones SE, Kon SS, Man WD. The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax. 2016;71(6):493–500. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kaambwa B, Bulamu NB, Mpundu-Kaambwa C, Oppong R. Convergent and discriminant validity of the Barthel Index and the EQ-5D-3L when used on older people in a rehabilitation setting. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910314.

23.

Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(3):287–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-013-0035-z.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kind P, Hardman G, S M. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D: Discussion paper 172. In: Centre for Health Economics Discussion Paper Series York. University of York: Centre for Health Economics; 1999.

25.

Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Drummond MF, Sculpher M, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.CrossRef

27.

West BT, Welsch KN. AT G. Linear Mixed Models: A practical Guide Using Statistical Software. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.

28.

O'Sullivan AK, Thompson D, Drummond MF. Collection of health-economic data alongside clinical trials: is there a future for piggyback evaluations? Value Health. 2005; 8(1):67–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.03065.x. .

29.

Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1548

30.

Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9001000308.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Raftery J, Williams HC, Clarke A, Thornton J, Norrie J, Snooks H, Stein K. “Not clinically effective but cost-effective” - paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with “doubly null” results: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1): e029596. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029596.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ. 1999;18(3):341–64.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Magin PJ, Marshall MJ, Goode SM, Cotter GL, Pond CD, Zwar NA. How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks? A cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two New South Wales networks. Med J Aust. 2011;195(4):210–3. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb03283.x.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Health Policy Analysis. Evaluation of the Health Care Homes program – Evaluation plan. 2019. Available from https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/08/evaluation-of-the-health-care-homes-program-evaluation-plan.pdf. Accessed 6 Feb 2024

35.

Singh AK, Kelley K, Agarwal R. Interpreting results of clinical trials: a conceptual framework. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3(5):1246–52. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.03580807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Sweeny AL, Keijzers G, Marshall A, Hall EJ, Ranse J, Zhang P, Grant G, Huang YL, Palipana D, Teng YD, et al. Emergency department presentations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Queensland (to June 2021): interrupted time series analysis. Med J Aust. 2023;218(3):120–5. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51819.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Reschen ME, Bowen J, Novak A, Giles M, Singh S, Lasserson D, O’Callaghan CA. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department attendances and acute medical admissions. BMC Emerg Med. 2021;21(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00529-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Mann E, Swedien D, Hansen J, Peterson S, Saheed M, Klein E, Munjuluru A, Scheulen J, Kelen G. Reduction in emergency department presentations in a regional health system during the Covid-19 pandemic. West J Emerg Med. 2021;22(4):842–50. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2020.10.49759.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Molina M, Evans J, Montoy JC, Cawley C, Graham-Squire D, Perez K, Raven M, Kanzaria HK. Analysis of Emergency Department Encounters Among High Users of Health Care and Social Service Systems Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(10): e2239076. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.39076.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Shetty A, Levesque J-F. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergency department presentations: an opportunity for renewal? Med J Aust. 2023;218(3):116–7. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51828.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Zhao J, Powell I, Chessman J. Potential to be more effective: Reduction in lower urgency emergency department presentations during the COVID-19 period in New South Wales Australia. Emerg Med Australas. 2023;35(2):283–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.14111.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Javanparast S, Roeger L, Kwok Y, Reed RL. The experience of Australian general practice patients at high risk of poor health outcomes with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-021-01408-w.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes
Authors: Richard L. Reed
Leigh Roeger
Billingsley Kaambwa
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10799-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Two-year follow-up of a clustered randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent general practice intervention for people at risk of poor health outcomes

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Quality in care requires kindness and flexibility – a hermeneutic-phenomenological study of patients’ experiences from pathways including transitions across healthcare settings

External inspection approaches and involvement of stakeholders’ views in inspection following serious incidents - a qualitative mixed methods study from the perspectives of regulatory inspectors

Postpartum length of hospital stay among obstetric patients in Ibadan, Nigeria

Effect of the Japanese medical office system on job satisfaction, loyalty, engagement, and organizational commitment of medical practitioners: a survey of cardiologists in the acute care setting

Measuring intersectional HIV, sexual diversity, and gender non-conformity stigma among healthcare workers in Ghana: scale validation and correlates of stigma

Hospital length of stay and readmission after elective surgery: a comparison of current and former smokers with non-smokers