Proefschrift

Chapter 4 42 Table 4.2 Costs per group in base case and sensitivity analysis scenario. Total population (N=53) BS FU W 0-12 FU W 13-26 Total after 26 weeks Healthcare (SD) Patients with paid job 150.60 (338.43)151.18 4,413.50 (3,231.64)4,412.89 701.45 (435.36)693.85 a 5,114.95 (3,667.00) Patients without paid job 302.20 (413.20)301.24 7,479.63 (9,076.19)7,518.62 861.35 (701.75)861.44 a 8,340.98 (9,777.94) Total 227.83 (382.47)228.68 5,975.49 (6,971.67)6,239.71 782.91 (586.40)670.04 a 6,758.40 (7,558.07) Productivity Loss (SD) Patients with paid job 121.75 (465.88)124.18 3,500.04 (3,462.10)3,506.63 853.64 (1,707.10)811.88 a 4,353.68 (5,169.20) Patients without paid job 0.00 (0.00)0.00 1,011.87 (1,363.51)1,001.61 341.70 (555.76)311.11 a 1,353.57 (1,919.27) Total 59.72 (328.82)57.44 2,232.48 (2,875.60)2,222.13 592.84 (1,273.67)698.83 a 2,825.32 (4,149.27) Patient-family (SD) Travel 13.78 (33.75)13.64 133.51 (76.07)133.93 119.72 (82.60)133.09 253.23 (158.67) Total average costs (SD) Patients with paid job 285.63 (630.48)282.95 8,033.02 (4,917.43)8,098.83 1,661.28 (1,913.36)2,160.18 a 9,694.30 (6,830.79) Patients without paid job 316.45 (435.85)321.44 8,638.52 (9,327.63)8,668.88 1,335.82 (1,035.01)1,340.20 a 9,974.34 (10,362.64) Total 301.33 (535.10)298.46 8,341.48 (7,431.10)8,326.70 1,495.48 (1,524.03)1,490.56 a 9,836.96 (8,955.13) a Sig. difference in group between patients with paid job and patients without paid job at 5% level. X Bootstrap Value Abbreviation: N, number of subjects; SD, standard deviation; BS, baseline; FU, follow-up; W, week. Data in cells are in Euros (€) Comparing sub-groups based on work status showed a significantly lower mean healthcare costs in patients with paid job compared to patients without paid job. Furthermore, the mean productivity costs were significantly higher in patients with paid job than in the group of patients without paid job. The costs at baseline and during 26 weeks of rehabilitation are presented in detail in Table 4.2. The sub-groups comparison indicated that there were differences in the ADL for both patients with paid jobs as patients without paid jobs. In terms of the utility and costs a difference was only perceived among patients with a paid job (Table 4.3). The LEFS score increased by 29.1 points during the 26 weeks of rehabilitation. The Utility scores increased significantly from 0.3 to 0.7 between 2 and 26 weeks of rehabilitation (p<0.01) (Table 4.3). Table 4.3 Outcomes base case and sensitivity analysis scenarios. FM e FU W6 FU W12 FU W26 p-value LEFS (SD) - LEFS-scores in patients with paid job (N=26) - LEFS-scores in patients without paid job (N=27) - Total LEFS-scores (N=53) 10.0 (5.1) 10.9 (3.5) 10.4 (4.4) 15.1 (7.0) 17.5 (5.1) 16.3 (6.2) 29.5 (14.6) 35.5 (9.8) 32.5 (12.7) 53.0 (11.4) 46.3 (14.0) 49.5 (13.1) <0.01a, b <0.01a, b <0.01a, b, c Utility scores, (SD) - Utility-scores in patients with paid job (N=26) - Utility-scores in patients without paid job (N=27) - Total Utility-scores (N=53) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.7d (0.2) 0.5d (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 0.8d (0.1) 0.7d (0.3) 0.7 (0.2) <0.01b NS NS a Significant difference in group between FM and FU W6 at 5% level; b Significant difference in group between FU W6 and FU W12 at 5% level; c Significant difference in group between FU W12 and FU W26 at 5% level; d Significant difference in group between patients with paid job and patients without paid job at 5% level; Abbreviation: N, number of subjects; SD, standard deviation; FM, First measurement; FU, follow-up; W, week; LEFS, lower extremity functional scale; QALY, quality adjusted life year, NS; not significant.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw