HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Richardson, G Articles by Rogers, A PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Richardson, G Articles by Rogers, A Related Collections Related Article

Cost effectiveness of the Expert Patients Programme (EPP) for patients with chronic conditions

¹ Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
² NPCRDC, 5th Floor Williamson Building, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Correspondence to:
Gerry Richardson, Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin ‘A’ Block, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK; gar2{at}york.ac.uk

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of the Expert Patients Programme (EPP) intervention compared to a treatment as usual alternative.

Design: Two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled trial design with waiting list control.

Setting: Community settings in England.

Patients: Patients with a wide range of self-defined long-term conditions.

Intervention: The EPP based on the US chronic disease self management program (CDSMP), a lay-led self-care group involving six weekly sessions to teach self-care support skills.

Main outcome measures: Costs estimated over a 6-month period from a societal perspective. Health outcomes estimated in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) generated by patients’ response to the EQ5D at baseline and 6-month follow-up.

Results: The intervention group is associated with better patient outcomes, at slightly lower cost. Specifically, the intervention group has a 0.020 QALY gain compared with the control group, and a reduced cost of around £27 per patient. The intervention would therefore be considered dominant. While the QALYs gained are small in absolute terms, an additional 0.02 QALY is equivalent to an extra one week of perfect health per year. When the value of a QALY is £20 000 the EPP has a probability of 94% of being cost effective. Indeed, for all plausible values of willingness-to-pay for a QALY the EPP group is more likely to be cost effective than the control group.

Conclusions: The EPP intervention evaluated in this trial is very likely to provide a cost effective alternative to usual care in people with long-term conditions.