Lahtinen, A., Leppilahti, J., Vähänikkilä, H., Harmainen, S., Koistinen, P., Rissanen, P., & Jalovaara, P. (2017). Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities. Clinical Rehabilitation, 31(5), 672–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516651480
Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients : a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities
|Author:||Lehtinen, A.1; Leppilahti, J.1; Vähänikkilä, H.2;|
1Department of Orthopedic, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
2Department of Trauma Surgery and Dentistry, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
3Health Center Hospital of Oulu, Finland
4School of Public Health Univ. of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
|Online Access:||PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.4 MB)|
|Persistent link:|| http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2019100831689
|Publish Date:|| 2019-10-08
Objective: To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture.
Design: Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients).
Main measures: At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives.
Results: Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation (p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid’s salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control (p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation (p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary (p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009).
Conclusions: Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.
|Pages:||672 - 685|
|Type of Publication:||
A1 Journal article – refereed
|Field of Science:||
3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
This study was financially supported by the Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (Finohta). It is an independent, public assessment agency working as a part of National Institute for Health and Welfare. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
© SAGE Publishing. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications. The Definitive Version of Record can be found online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516651480.