48
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness of speech and language therapy plus scalp acupuncture versus speech and language therapy alone for community-based patients with Broca’s aphasia after stroke: a post hoc analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combined scalp acupuncture therapy with speech and language therapy for patients with Broca’s aphasia after stroke.

          Design

          A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis.

          Settings

          Community health centres.

          Subjects

          A total of 203 participants with Broca’s aphasia after stroke who had been randomly assigned to receive scalp acupuncture with speech and language therapy (intervention) or speech and language therapy alone (control).

          Intervention

          Both groups underwent speech and language therapy (30 min per day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks), while the intervention group simultaneously received scalp acupuncture.

          Primary outcomes

          All outcomes were collected at baseline, and after the 4-week intervention and 12-week follow-up. Cost-effectiveness measures included the Chinese Rehabilitation Research Center Standard Aphasia Examination (CRRCAE) and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE). Cost–utility was evaluated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed, and sensitivity analysis was conducted.

          Results

          The total cost to deliver the intervention was €4001.72, whereas it was €4323.57 for the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that the intervention was cost-effective (€495.1 per BDAE grade gained; €1.8 per CRRCAE score gained; €4597.1 per QALYs gained) relative to the control over the 12 weeks. The intervention had a 56.4% probability of being cost-effective at the ¥50 696 (€6905.87) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

          Conclusions

          Compared with speech and language therapy alone, the addition of scalp acupuncture was cost-effective in Chinese communities. As the costs of acupuncture services in China are likely to differ from other countries, these results should be carefully interpreted and remain to be confirmed in other populations.

          Trial registration number

          ChiCTR-TRC-13003703.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevalence, Incidence, and Mortality of Stroke in China: Results from a Nationwide Population-Based Survey of 480 687 Adults.

          China bears the biggest stroke burden in the world. However, little is known about the current prevalence, incidence, and mortality of stroke at the national level, and the trend in the past 30 years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches

              Abstract Many countries use the cost–effectiveness thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization’s Choosing Interventions that are Cost–Effective project (WHO-CHOICE) when evaluating health interventions. This project sets the threshold for cost–effectiveness as the cost of the intervention per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted less than three times the country’s annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Highly cost–effective interventions are defined as meeting a threshold per DALY averted of once the annual GDP per capita. We argue that reliance on these thresholds reduces the value of cost–effectiveness analyses and makes such analyses too blunt to be useful for most decision-making in the field of public health. Use of these thresholds has little theoretical justification, skirts the difficult but necessary ranking of the relative values of locally-applicable interventions and omits any consideration of what is truly affordable. The WHO-CHOICE thresholds set such a low bar for cost–effectiveness that very few interventions with evidence of efficacy can be ruled out. The thresholds have little value in assessing the trade-offs that decision-makers must confront. We present alternative approaches for applying cost–effectiveness criteria to choices in the allocation of health-care resources.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                6 September 2021
                : 11
                : 9
                : e046609
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentNational-Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Rehabilitation Medicine Technology , Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine , Fuzhou, China
                [2 ]departmentCollege of Rehabilitation Medicine , Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine , Fuzhou, China
                [3 ]departmentFujian Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technology , Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine , Fuzhou, China
                [4 ]departmentKey Laboratory of Orthopedics & Traumatology of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Rehabilitation (FuJian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine) , Ministry of Education , Fuzhou, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Jing Tao; taojing01@ 123456fjtcm.edu.cn
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4594-0325
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-046609
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046609
                8422313
                34489271
                71937640-596c-42dd-8b6d-76c890a030bd
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 04 November 2020
                : 17 July 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: the Special Scientific Research Fund of Public Welfare Profession of China;
                Award ID: 201307004
                Funded by: Science and technology platform construction project of Fujian science and Technology Department;
                Award ID: 2018Y2002
                Categories
                Complementary Medicine
                1506
                1685
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health economics,rehabilitation medicine,stroke
                Medicine
                health economics, rehabilitation medicine, stroke

                Comments

                Comment on this article