This study aimed to conduct a cost-utility analysis of a group intervention compared to the usual care for various musculoskeletal disorders.
One hundred and twenty military members presenting shoulder, knee, ankle or low back pain were randomized to receive either usual care or a group intervention. Cumulative direct health care costs were prospectively collected over 26 weeks from the perspective of costs incurred by the Canadian Armed Forces. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed using the ED-5Q-5L score at baseline, 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were estimated. The mean cost per patient (in 2023 CAD dollars) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to measure the cost-utility ratio of the two interventions. One hundred and twenty military members presenting shoulder, knee, ankle or low back pain were randomized to receive either usual care or a group intervention. Cumulative direct health care costs were prospectively collected over 26 weeks from the perspective of costs incurred by the Canadian Armed Forces. Effectiveness of interventions was assessed using the ED-5Q-5L score at baseline, 6, 12 and 26 weeks. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were estimated. The mean cost per patient (in 2023 CAD dollars) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to measure the cost-utility ratio of the two interventions.
The mean QALY gain was 0.011 QALY in both groups. The average cost for a patient was 532$ in the group intervention and 599$ in the usual care. The ICER indicated that the group intervention dominated usual care (cost less and as effective).
This cost-utility study demonstrates that group intervention dominated usual care for treating musculoskeletal disorders.
These findings provide valuable insights into an efficient strategy particularly significant in contexts with limited access to rehabilitation and resources.
Health services accessibility
Economic evaluation
