Skip Navigation

Rheumatology 2007 46(11):1701-1708; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kem245
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Dziedzic, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, M.
Right arrow Articles by Dziedzic, K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Economics
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An economic evaluation of three physiotherapy treatments for non-specific neck disorders alongside a randomized trial

M. Lewis, M. James1, E. Stokes1, J. Hill, J. Sim, E. Hay and K. Dziedzic

Primary Care Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Primary Care Sciences and 1Centre for Health Planning and Management, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK

Correspondence to: Dr Martyn Lewis, Senior Lecturer in Statistics, Primary Care Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Primary Care Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. E-mail: a.m.lewis{at}cphc.keele.ac.uk.


   Abstract

Objectives. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were conducted to compare advice and exercise plus manual therapy (MT) and advice and exercise plus pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) with advice and exercise alone (A&E) in the treatment of non-specific neck disorders by experienced physiotherapists.

Methods. Between July 2000 and June 2002, 350 participants with neck disorders from 15 physiotherapy departments were randomized to: A&E (n = 115); MT (n = 114) and PSWD (n = 121). Outcome and resource-use data were collected using physiotherapist case report forms and participant self-complete questionnaires. Outcome measures were the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) and EuroQoL EQ-5D [used to derive quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) utility scores]. Two economic viewpoints were considered (health care and societal). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to assess the probabilities of the interventions being cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay threshold values.

Results. Mean improvement in NPQ at 6 months was 11.5 in the A&E group, 10.2 in the MT group and 10.3 in the PSWD group; mean QALY scores were 0.362, 0.342 and 0.360, respectively. Mean health care costs were £105, £119 and £123 in the A&E, MT and PSWD groups, respectively. Mean societal costs were £373, £303 and £338 in each group, respectively. Depending on the viewpoint and the outcome measure, A&E or MT were most likely to be the cost-effective interventions. PSWD was consistently the least cost-effective intervention.

Conclusions. The cost-effective intervention is likely to be A&E or MT, depending on the economic perspective and preferred outcome, but not PSWD.

KEY WORDS: Randomized clinical trial, Economic evaluation, Cost effectiveness, Cost utility, Neck pain, Physiotherapy

Submitted 6 December 2006; revised version accepted 9 August 2007.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.