Cost‐utility and cost‐effectiveness analyses of a long‐term, high‐intensity exercise program compared with conventional physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost utility and cost effectiveness of long-term, high-intensity exercise classes compared with usual care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: RA patients (n = 300) were randomly assigned to either exercise classes or UC; followup lasted for 2 years. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D), Short Form 6D (SF-6D), and a transformed visual analog scale (VAS) rating personal health; functional ability according to the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Interview (MACTAR); and societal costs. RESULTS: QALYs in both randomization groups were similar according to the EQ-5D and SF-6D, but were in favor of usual care according to the VAS (annual difference 0.037 QALY; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.002, 0.069). Functional ability was similar according to the HAQ, but in favor of the exercise classes according to the MACTAR (annual difference 2.9 QALY; 95% CI 0.9, 4.9). Annual medical costs of the exercise program were estimated at 780 per participating patient (1 approximately $1.05). The increase per patient in total medical costs of physical therapy was estimated at 430 (95% CI 318, 577), and the increase in total societal costs at 602 (95% CI -490, 1,664). For societal willingness-to-pay equal to 50,000 per QALY, usual care had better cost utility than exercise classes, and significantly so according to the VAS. CONCLUSION: From a societal perspective and without taking possible preventive health effects into account, long-term, high-intensity exercise classes provide insufficient improvement in the valuation of health to justify the additional costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".