Skip to main content

The cost of a patient activation intervention for achieving successful outcomes: results from the PAADRN randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Summary

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.

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

An individually tailored DXA result letter accompanied by an educational brochure can improve four patient-centered outcomes at a modest cost.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01507662

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Schwartz D, Lellouch J (1967) Explanatoy and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis 20:637–648

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sox HC, Lewis RJ (2016) Pragmatic trials: practical answers to “real world” questions. JAMA 316:1205–1206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ford I, Norrie J (2016) Pragmatic Trials N Engl J Med 375: 454–463. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510059

  4. 4.

    Patsopoulos NA (2011) A pragramatic view of pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 13:217–224

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    (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

  11. 11.

    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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Neumann PJ, Sanders GD, Russell LB, Siegel JE, Ganiats TG (2017) Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. D. Wolinsky.

Ethics declarations

Funding/support

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Clinical trials
  • Costs
  • DXA
  • Osteoporosis
  • Patient activation