Cost effectiveness of the Expert Patients Programme (EPP) for patients with chronic conditions

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Volumn 62, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 361-367

  Richardson, Gerry ^a   Kennedy, A ^b   Reeves, D ^b   Bower, P ^b   Lee, V ^b   Middleton, E ^b   Gardner, C ^b   Gately, C ^b   Rogers, A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DESIGN; ESTIMATION METHOD; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LONG TERM CARE; MALE; PATIENT CARE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF CARE; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CHRONIC DISEASE; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HEALTH RESOURCES; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

ENGLAND; EURASIA; EUROPE; UNITED KINGDOM; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 41149083458     PISSN: 0143005X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.057430     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Department of Health. The NHS Plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform. Cm 4818-1. London: DH, 2000.
2. Department of Health. Self care - a real choice: self care support - practical option. London: DH, 2005.
3. Donaldson L. The expert patient: a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. BMJ 2003;326:1279-80.
4. Warner. Speech by Lord Warner, Minister of State for NHS Delivery (Lords), 22 November 2005, Expert Patient Programme annual conference, 2005.
5. Bury M, Newbould J, Taylor D. A rapid review of the current state of knowledge regarding lay led self management of chronic illness: evidence review. London: NICE, 2005.
6. Lorig KR, Ritter P, Stewart AL, et al. Chronic disease self-management program: 2-year health status and health care utilization outcomes. Medical Care 2001;39:1217-23.
7. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Effective Clinical Practice 2001;4:256-62.
8. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, et al. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve health status while reducing hospitalization: a randomized trial. Medical Care 1999;37:5-14.
9. Kennedy A, Reeves D, Bower P, et al. The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay led self care support programme for patients with long-term conditions: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:254-61.
10. Cooper J, Thompson J. Stepping stones to success: an implementation, training and support framework for lay led self-management programmes. London: NHS, 2005.
11. Lorig KR, Holman HR. Evidence suggesting that health education for self-management in patients with chronic arthritis has sustained health benefits while reducing health care costs. Arthritis Rheum 1993:439-46.
12. Wheeler JR, Janz NK, Dodge JA. Can a disease self-management program reduce health care costs? The case of older women with heart disease, [see comment] [erratum appears in Med Care 2003:41:1085]. Med Care 2003;41:706-15.
13. Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1996.
14. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis.[see comment]. Medical Decision Making 1998;18(2 Suppl):S68-80.
15. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2002. Canterbury: University of Kent Personal Social Services Unit, 2002.
16. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 1999;38:807-13.
17. Xia Q, Hwang S, Chang V, et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of Euroqol (EQ5D) in patients (Pts) receiving palliative care (PC). J Clin Oncol 2005 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings. 2005;23(16S Part I of II (June 1 Suppl)):8082.
18. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, et al. A social tariff for EuroQol: results from a UK general population survey. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1995.
19. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487-96.
20. Rubin DB, Stern HS, Vehovar V. Handling "don't know" survey responses: the case of the Slovenian plebiscite. J Am Stat Assoc 1995;90:822-8.
21. Stata. Statistical Data Analysis, www.stata.com 2002:80.
22. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001;10:779-87.
23. van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994;3:309-19.
24. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. N0515. London: NICE, 2004:47.
25. Richardson G, Gravelle H, Weatherly H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to support self-care: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:423-32.
26. Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care 2002. Canterbury: University of Kent Personal Social Services Unit, 2002.
27. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care 2004. Canterbury: University of Kent Personal Social Services Unit, 2004.
28. National Audit Office. WHS Direct in England. London: HMSO, 2002:30.
29. Hansard. HMSO, 2005.
30. Bauld L, Mangalore R. Costing intensive home care packages for older people. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 2001.
31. British National Formulary 48. London: British Medical Association, 2004.