In a large, pragmatic clinical trial, we calculated the costs of achieving four successful patient-centered outcomes using a tailored patient activation DXA result letter accompanied by a bone health brochure. The cost to achieve one successful outcome (e.g., a 0.5 standard deviation improvement in care satisfaction) ranged from $127.41 to $222.75.
Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should focus on patient-centered outcomes and report the costs for achieving those outcomes. We calculated per person incremental intervention costs, the number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and incremental per patient costs (cost per NNT) for four patient-centered outcomes in a direct-to-patient bone healthcare intervention.
The Patient Activation after DXA Result Notification (PAADRN) pragmatic RCT enrolled 7749 patients presenting for DXA at three health centers between February 2012 and August 2014. Interviews occurred at baseline and 52 weeks post-DXA. Intervention subjects received an individually tailored DXA result letter accompanied by an educational bone health brochure 4 weeks post-DXA, while the usual care subjects did not. Outcomes focused on patients (a) correctly identifying their results, (b) contacting their providers, (c) discussing their results with their providers, and (d) satisfaction with their bone healthcare. NNTs were determined using intention-to-treat linear probability models, per person incremental intervention costs were calculated, and costs per NNT were computed.
Mean age was 66.6 years old, 83.8% were women, and 75.3% were non-Hispanic whites. The incremental per patient cost (costs per NNT) to increase the ability of a patient to (a) correctly identify their DXA result was $171.07; (b) contact their provider about their DXA result was $222.75; (c) discuss their DXA result with their provider was $193.55; and (d) achieve a 0.5 SD improvement in satisfaction with their bone healthcare was $127.41.
An individually tailored DXA result letter accompanied by an educational brochure can improve four patient-centered outcomes at a modest cost.
clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01507662
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatoy and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis 20:637–648
Sox HC, Lewis RJ (2016) Pragmatic trials: practical answers to “real world” questions. JAMA 316:1205–1206
Ford I, Norrie J (2016) Pragmatic Trials N Engl J Med 375: 454–463. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059
Patsopoulos NA (2011) A pragramatic view of pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 13:217–224
Witt C, Efficacy M (2009) Effectiveness, pragmatic trials—guidance on terminology and the advantages of pragmatic trials. Forsch Komplementmed 16:292–294. doi:10.1159/000234904
Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ et al (2008) Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 337:a2390. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2390
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al (2009) A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 62:464–475. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
Wright NC, Looker AC, Saag KG et al (2014) The recent prevalence of osteoporosis and low bone mass in the United States based on bone mineral density at the femoral neck or lumbar spine. J Bone Miner Res 29:2520–2526. doi:10.1002/jbmr.2269
Burge R, Dawson-Hughes B, Solomon D et al (2014) Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005–2025. J Bone Miner Res 22:465–475. doi:10.1359/jbmr.061113
(2011) Screening for osteoporosis: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 154:356–364. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00307
Cosman F, de Beur SJ, LeBoff MS et al (2014) Clinician’s guide to prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 25:2359. doi:10.1007/s00198-014-2794-2
Edmonds SW, Wolinsky FD, Christensen AJ et al (2012) The PAADRN study: a design for a randomized controlled practical clinical trial to improve bone health. Contemp Clin Trials 34:90–100. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2012.10.002
Cram P, Wolinsky FD, Lou Y et al (2016) Patient-activation and guideline-concordant pharmacological treatment after bone density testing: the PAADRN randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 27:3513–3524. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3681-9
Edmonds SW, Cram P, Lou Y et al (2016) Effects of a DXA result letter on satisfaction, quality of life, and osteoporosis knowledge: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:369. doi:10.1186/s12891-016-1227-0
Edmonds SW, Solimeo SL, Lu X, Roblin DW, Saag KG, Cram P (2014) Developing a bone mineral density test result letter to send to patients: a mixed-methods study. Patient Prefer Adherence 8:827–841. doi:10.2147/PPA.S60106
Edmonds SW, Solimeo SL, Nguyen VT et al (2017) Understanding preferences for osteoporosis information to develop an osteoporosis-patient education brochure. Permanente J 21:16–24 doi.org/10.7812/TPP/16-024
Cram P, Schlechte J, Christensen A (2006) A randomized trial to assess the impact of direct reporting of DXA scan results to patients on quality of osteoporosis care. J Clin Densitom 9:393–398
Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A et al (2016) Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 316:1093–1103. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG (2017) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Accreditation association for ambulatory health care. The importance of patient satisfaction. https://www.aaahc.org/Global/pdfs/Connection/2015%20May%20Connection_The%20Importance%20of%20Patient%20Satisfaction.pdf, 2015. Accessed April 5, 2017.
This work was supported by R01 AG033035 (Cram/Wolinsky) from the NIA at NIH. Dr. Cram is supported by a K24 AR062133 award from NIAMS at the NIH. Dr. Saag is supported by a K24 AR052361 award from the NIAMS at the NIH.
Conflict of interest
F. D. Wolinsky, Y. Lou, S. F. Hall, S. W. Edmonds, D. W. Roblin, M. P. Jones, and P. Cram, have no conflicts of interest. N. C. Wright has received unrestricted grant support from Amgen for work unrelated to this project. K. G. Saag has received grants from Amgen, Eli Lilly and Merck and has served as a paid consultant to Amgen, Eli Lilly, and Merck unrelated to this project.
About this article
Cite this article
Wolinsky, F.D., Hall, S.F., Lou, Y. et al. The cost of a patient activation intervention for achieving successful outcomes: results from the PAADRN randomized controlled trial. Osteoporos Int 28, 3061–3066 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-4113-1
- Clinical trials
- Patient activation