Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

Cost-effectiveness of counselling, graded-exercise and usual care for chronic fatigue: evidence from a randomised trial in primary care

Zeitschrift:
BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Ramon Sabes-Figuera, Paul McCrone, Mike Hurley, Michael King, Ana Nora Donaldson, Leone Ridsdale
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-12-264) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

RSF did the data analysis, participated in the interpretation of the data and prepared the manuscript. PM contributed to the research proposal, reviewed the analysis, participated in the interpretation of the data and participated in the preparation of the manuscript. MH, MK and AND participated in the research proposal and the conduct of the study, and reviewed the manuscript. LR originated the idea for this study, developed the research proposal with MH and MK, led on the conduct of the study, participated in the interpretation of the data and participated in the preparation of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

Fatigue is common and has been shown to result in high economic costs to society. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of two active therapies, graded-exercise (GET) and counselling (COUN) with usual care plus a self-help booklet (BUC) for people presenting with chronic fatigue.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial was conducted with participants consulting for fatigue of over three months’ duration recruited from 31 general practices in South East England and allocated to one of three arms. Outcomes and use of services were assessed at 6-month follow-up. The main outcome measure used in the economic evaluation was clinically significant improvements in fatigue, measured using the Chalder fatigue scale. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results

Full economic and outcome data at six months were available for 163 participants; GET = 51, COUN = 58 and BUC = 54. Those receiving the active therapies (GET and COUN) had more contacts with care professionals and therefore higher costs, these differences being statistically significant. COUN was more expensive and less effective than the other two therapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GET compared to BUC was equal to £987 per unit of clinically significant improvement. However, there was much uncertainty around this result.

Conclusion

This study does not provide a clear recommendation about which therapeutic option to adopt, based on efficiency, for patients with chronic fatigue. It suggests that COUN is not cost-effective, but it is unclear whether GET represents value for money compared to BUC.
Clinical Trial Registration number at ISRCTN register: 72136156
Zusatzmaterial
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12913_2012_2182_MOESM1_ESM.jpeg
Authors’ original file for figure 2
12913_2012_2182_MOESM2_ESM.jpeg
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe