Key result
Telephone-based secondary prevention shows no health utility benefit over usual care and increases costs.
Why the study?
Does a six-month telephone-based health coaching intervention improve health-related quality of life and physical activity in adult myocardial infarction patients?
RCT (n=430)
Open-label
Randomized
Yes
Does a six-month telephone-based health coaching intervention improve health-related quality of life and physical activity in adult myocardial infarction patients?
Mean Difference: 0.012 (95% CI -0.016–0.041)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.13% vs 0.118%
p-value: p=0.372
A telephone-based health coaching program for post-MI patients did not improve health utility and was not cost-effective compared to usual care due to increased hospitalization costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Telephone coaching added costs without QALY gains; leaves open longer-term or refined program value in post-MI care.
Turkstra et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Myocardial infarction (n=430). ProActive Heart (telephone-delivered health coaching) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Change in health utility (SF-6D) at 6 months (MD 0.012, 95% CI -0.016 to 0.041, p=0.372). The ProActive Heart telephone-delivered secondary prevention program did not significantly improve health utility compared to usual care (MD 0.012, p=0.372) and resulted in significantly higher costs, yielding an ICER of $85,423 per QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: