Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and sensitivity analyses

From: Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Outcome

ΔC (95% CI) d

ΔE (95% CI)

ICER

CE plane

    

NE

SE

SW

NW

Main analysis: Societal perspective

 Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) score (11–55)

− 552 (− 2920; 1903)

−0.062 (− 0.40; 0.28) a,b

8919

21%

49%

21%

9%

 Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) score (0–40)

− 552 (− 2920; 1903)

0.075 (− 0.20; 0.35) a,c

−7310

20%

48%%

22%

10%

 QALYs (0–1)

−552 (− 2920; 1903)

0.0017 (− 0.059; 0.063)

−315,671

17%

35%

35%

13%

SA1: Unadjusted analysis

 Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) score (11–55)

−552 (− 2920; 1903)

− 0.060 (− 0.40; 0.28)a

9158

21%

49%

21%

9%

 Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) score (0–40)

−552 (− 2920; 1903)

0.033 (− 0.26; 0.32)a

−16,913

16%

37%

33%

14%

 QALYs (0–1)

−552 (− 2920; 1903)

0.015 (− 0.058; 0.088)

− 36,774

20%

46%

24%

10%

SA 2: Healthcare perspective

 Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) score (11–55)

− 548 (− 2805; 1927)

− 0.062 (− 0.40; 0.28) a,b

8861

19%

50%

21%

9%

 Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) score (0–40)

− 548 (− 2805; 1927)

0.075 (− 0.20; 0.35) a,c

− 7263

19%

49%

23%

9%

 QALYs (0–1)

− 548 (− 2805; 1927)

0.0017 (− 0.059; 0.063)

− 313,640

16%

36%

35%

13%

SA 3: Ignore clustering of data

 Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) score (11–55)

− 311 (− 3340; 2227)

0.15 (− 0.27; 0.47) a,b

− 2065

7%

10%

49%

34%

 Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) score (0–40)

− 311 (− 3340; 2227)

0.18 (− 0.12; 0.48) a,c

− 1714

37%

51%

7%

5%

 QALYs (0–1)

− 311 (− 3340; 2227)

0.0018 (− 0.058; 0.062)

− 169,209

22%

32%

26%

20%

SA 4: Complete-case analysis

 Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) score (11–55)

214 (− 7863; 5630)

− 0.20 (− 0.53; 0.12) a,b

− 1059

46%

45%

5%

4%

 Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) score (0–40)

214 (− 7863; 5630)

− 0.15 (− 0.44; 0.15) a,c

− 1469

2%

13%

37%

48%

 QALYs (0–1)

214 (− 7863; 5630)

0.026 (− 0.12; 0.072)

− 8118

13%

13%

37%

37%

  1. aOverall effect over time corrected for score at baseline
  2. bQUALID was adjusted for age person with dementia, gender of person with dementia, education of person with dementia. A lower score indicates improved health. A higher score indicates decreases health
  3. cGAIN was adjusted for age family caregiver, gender family caregiver, education family caregiver, relationship between person with dementia and family caregiver
  4. d Uncertainty around cost differences estimated using the non-parametric bootstrap
  5. CE plane cost-effectiveness plane, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, SA sensitivity analysis, 95%CI 95% confidence interval
  6. CE-plane quadrants:
  7. NE North-east quadrant indicates higher costs and improved health for Namaste in comparison with usual care, NW North-west quadrant indicates higher costs and worse health, SE South-east quadrant indicates lower costs and improved health, SW South-west quadrant indicates lower costs and worse health