Cost-effectiveness of self-management methods for the treatment of chronic pain in an aging adult population: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of self-management techniques for older populations (65 and over) with chronic pain and in the absence of such evidence to investigate this question in an aging adult population (average age 60 and over). \n \nMethods: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with cost-effectiveness data and at least 6 months’ follow-up, up to December 2010. \n \nResults: No RCT studies reported cost-effectiveness of self-management exclusively in the over 65 age group. Ten RCTs reported participants with an average age of 60 years or over and met all other inclusion criteria. All of these studies measured cost-effectiveness as cost per improvement in primary outcome, 7 of them using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, of which 6 reported the pain dimension. Six studies reported cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)-gained information, with a further 1 reporting EQ-5D. In 7 studies, relative to usual care, self-management was effective, and in the remaining 3 studies, there was no significant difference. Among those reporting cost per QALY-gained results, self-management did not lead to statistically significant QALY gains relative to usual care (with only one exception). Eight studies suggested that the cost of developing and delivering self-management interventions may be partly offset by savings from reduced subsequent health care resource use. \n \nConclusions: Self-management is effective among an aging adult population (mean age over 60) with chronic pain and may be cost-effective when outcomes are measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score. Cost-effectiveness is less certain when measured using the QALY metric. Uncertainty over conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness exists partly due to lack of information regarding societal willingness to pay for pain improvement. There is a need for large multicentred high-quality RCTs to confirm the findings of this review exclusively among older aged populations, such as those who have already reached the statutory retirement age.
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 | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".