Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gage, H.
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gage, H.
Right arrow Articles by Wade, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 20, No. 3, 232-238 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215506cr936oa
© 2006 SAGE Publications

Evaluating rehabilitation using cost-consequences analysis: an example in Parkinson's disease

Heather Gage

Department of Economics, University of Surrey, Oxford, UK

Julie Kaye

Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS Trust, Oxford, UK

Charles Owen

Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, Oxford, UK

Patrick Trend

Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford

Derick Wade

The Oxford Centre for Enablement, Oxford, UK

Objective: To use cost-consequences analysis to evaluate rehabilitation, and to discuss some practical limitations.

Design: Case study of a cost-consequences analysis.

Setting: Day hospital.

Subjects: People with Parkinson's disease without major cognitive loss, and their carers.

Intervention: A programme of multidisciplinary rehabilitation, delivered for one day per week over six weeks, and including 2 h of individual therapy (physical, occupational, speech and language, specialist nurse) and group activities on each occasion.

Main measures: Costs: direct and overhead costs of treatment; participant travel. Consequences: patient outcomes (mobility, speech and language, disability, psychological well-being, health-related quality of life); carer outcomes (psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, strain); social service utilization; satisfaction.

Results: In this example the main costs were facility's overheads and hospital-provided transport. The consequences of the intervention were improved immediate outcomes for patients that diminished over four months, discovery of unmet social services need, high satisfaction. No benefits for carers were observed.

Conclusion: A cost-consequences analysis provides a clear descriptive summary for decision-makers that is easier to interpret than cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis. It is a useful technique in rehabilitation research where multiple outcomes and several perspectives (health service, patient, carer) are relevant. However limitations remain: it is difficult to capture all consequences because of data deficiencies and long-term effects; evaluations of individual interventions are partial and do not guarantee economic rationality; local studies may not be generalizable; fixed protocols impede the evaluation of alternative service configurations.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Pediatr PsycholHome page
S. L. Palmer, W. E. Reddick, and A. Gajjar
Understanding the Cognitive Impact on Children Who are Treated for Medulloblastoma
J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 1, 2007; 32(9): 1040 - 1049.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]