←back to Blog

Economic evaluation of a person-centred care intervention with a digital platform and structured telephone support for people with chronic heart failure and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a randomised controlled trial in Sweden

BMJ Open. 2025 Oct 9;15(10):e093083. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093083.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the healthcare costs and effects of a remote person-centred care (PCC) add-on intervention compared with usual care for people with chronic heart failure (CHF) and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary Disease (COPD) from a societal perspective.

DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on the results from a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING: The study was conducted from August 2017 until June 2021 within nine primary care centres across Western Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the study had a diagnosis of COPD (J43.0, J44.0-J44.9) and/or CHF (I50.0-I50.9).224 patients were randomly allocated to the study groups. After two withdrawals, the final intention-to-treat analysis included 110 participants in the intervention group and 112 in the control group.

INTERVENTIONS: Both the intervention and control group received usual care through their primary care centres. In addition, the intervention group participated in a remote PCC add-on intervention consisting of a digital platform and structured telephone support.

PRIMARY OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using direct healthcare costs, productivity loss and prescription drug costs, compared with health effects measured using the EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) over a 2-year time horizon.

RESULTS: The intervention group had lower healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, specialised outpatient care and reduced productivity loss. The CEA showed incremental effects of 0.0469 quality-adjusted life years and incremental costs of SEK -68 533 (Swedish crowns). The PCC alternative was both more effective and resulted in lower healthcare costs compared with usual care, that is, PCC was dominant.

CONCLUSIONS: The results of this CEA demonstrated that a remote PCC add-on intervention for people with COPD and/or CHF had lower healthcare costs and higher health-related quality of life compared with usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03183817 ClinicalTrials.gov.

PMID:41067758 | DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093083