Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017;5(4):202-214.
doi: 10.1080/21641846.2017.1343171. Epub 2017 Jun 30.

Cost-Utility of Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Cost-Utility of Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Hongdao Meng et al. Fatigue. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome is a complex chronic condition with large negative impact on patients' function and quality of life. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral intervention remain inconclusive.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of a home-based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among primary care patients with severe chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

Methods: An economic evaluation alongside of a randomized controlled study design was used. Cost and utility data were collected from 137 patients with severe CFS at baseline and 1-year follow-up. The FSM group (n=89) received self-delivered cognitive behavioral self-management intervention and the usual care group (n=48) received regular medical care. Cost was measured by total costs (direct, indirect, and intervention costs) during the follow-up period. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), as the utility measure, were derived from the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36. A societal perspective was adopted. Bootstrapped incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) and net monetary benefit were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.

Results: Baseline individual characteristics were similar between the two groups. The intervention was well-received by the participants with only minimum attrition. At the end of one year post-intervention, FSM dominated usual care in terms of ICUR in both the intention-to-treat analysis and the complete-cases-only analysis. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has higher probability of achieving positive net monetary across the entire range of possible societal willingness-to-pay for fatigue symptom management.

Conclusions: In primary care patients with severe CFS, the low-cost FSM appears to be a cost-effective treatment.

Keywords: cognitive behavioral therapy; cost-utility analysis; fatigue; self-management.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Scatter plots of incremental cost-utility ratios for FSM versus TAU from bootstrapped samples Note: FSM = Home-Based Fatigue Self-Management; TAU=Treatment as Usual; QALY=Quality-Adjusted Life Year

Four quadrants: northeast (more effective, more costly), northwest (less effective, more costly), southwest (less effective, less costly), and southeast (more effective, less costly).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curves as a function of different societal willingness-to-pay values per QALY QALY: Quality-Adjusted Life Year

Similar articles

See all similar articles

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback