oru.sePublikationer
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Cost-effectiveness of a systematic e-assessed follow-up of postoperative recovery after day surgery: a multicentre randomized trial
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4170-6451
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences. University Health Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8433-6529
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences. Örebro University Hospital. University Health Care Research Centre.
Örebro University, School of Health Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7575-6745
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN 0007-0912, E-ISSN 1471-6771, Vol. 119, no 5, 1039-1046 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Most surgeries are done on a day-stay basis. Recovery assessment by phone points (RAPP) is a smartphonebased application (app) to evaluate patients after day surgery. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using RAPP for follow-up on postoperative recovery compared with standard care.

Methods: This study was a prospective parallel single-blind multicentre randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly allocated to the intervention group using RAPP or the control group receiving standard care. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on individual data and included costs for the intervention, health effect [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)], and costs or savings in health-care use.

Results: The mean cost for health-care consumption during 2 weeks after surgery was estimated at e37.29 for the intervention group and e60.96 for the control group. The mean difference was e23.66 (99% confidence interval 46.57 to0.76; P¼0.008). When including the costs of the intervention, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed net savings of e4.77 per patient in favour of the intervention. No difference in QALYs gained was seen between the groups (P¼0.75). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 71%.

Conclusions: This study shows that RAPP can be cost-effective but had no effect on QALY. RAPP can be a cost-effective toolin providing low-cost health-care contacts and in systematically assessing the quality of postoperative recovery.

Clinical trial registration:NCT02492191

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2017. Vol. 119, no 5, 1039-1046 p.
Keyword [en]
Ambulatory surgery, cost effectiveness, mobile applications, postoperative period
National Category
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-61954DOI: 10.1093/bja/aex332ISI: 000413642900027PubMedID: 29077819OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-61954DiVA: diva2:1152658
Funder
Forte, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, 2013-4765Swedish Research Council, 2015-02273
Available from: 2017-10-25 Created: 2017-10-25 Last updated: 2018-01-02

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Dahlberg, KarunaPhilipsson, AnnaHagberg, LarsJaensson, MariaHälleberg Nyman, MariaNilsson, Ulrica

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dahlberg, KarunaPhilipsson, AnnaHagberg, LarsJaensson, MariaHälleberg Nyman, MariaNilsson, Ulrica
By organisation
School of Health SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 38 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf