This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP). Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario). Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark. A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149). App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP. Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI -136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity. From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results. NCT03798288.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kongstad et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: