184 Cost-effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a complex intervention aimed at decreasing morbidity in patients with long-term lung conditions such as COPD, bronchiectasis and pulmonary fibrosis. In the NHS setting, it is an 8 week programme consisting of exercise training to reduce functional decline, and education to aid patients with self-management of their condition. Extensive evidence exists in support of the clinical effectiveness of PR but there is a paucity of studies evaluating the economics of PR. This review aimed to evaluate cost-effectiveness studies of PR programmes worldwide. <h3>Methods</h3> A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A thorough literature search strategy was employed across PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (CEA Registry), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Google Scholar from inception to October 2019 for studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of PR programmes with that of usual care. Included studies had to meet the Cochrane definition of PR; at minimum, exercise training for at least 4 weeks. Cost-effectiveness measures included cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost per clinically significant outcome, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or cost savings to the healthcare system involved. These findings were then narratively synthesised. <h3>Results</h3> 8 studies consisting of 1437 patients were included. Settings for the PR programmes were UK, Ireland, France, Netherlands, Canada and Australia. 7 studies included COPD patients only. 1 study assessing the uncertainties around the cost and outcome found that the cost per QALY was below £17000, below the willingness to pay threshold suggested by the NICE. Evidence from the studies suggests that PR is cost-effective with savings for the healthcare provider involved. <h3>Conclusion</h3> PR is a cost-effective intervention with potential savings for the service providers. Future studies should examine whether cost-effectiveness varies with the age of patients undergoing PR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".