Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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 pound sterling105, pound sterling119 and pound sterling123 in the A&E, MT and PSWD groups, respectively. Mean societal costs were pound sterling373, pound sterling303 and pound sterling 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.

Original publication

DOI

10.1093/rheumatology/kem245

Type

Journal

Rheumatology (Oxford)

Publication Date

11/2007

Volume

46

Pages

1701 - 1708

Keywords

Adult, Attitude to Health, Combined Modality Therapy, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diathermy, England, Exercise Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Care Costs, Health Resources, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neck Pain, Pain Measurement, Patient Education as Topic, Physical Therapy Modalities, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Sickness Impact Profile, Treatment Outcome