The overall goal of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI) is to gain a better understanding of how to support functioning, health maintenance, and quality-of-life of persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) along the continuum of care, in the community, and along their life span. The purpose of this study was to present the SwiSCI study design. SwiSCI is composed of three complementary pathways and will include Swiss persons 16 yrs or older who have diagnoses of traumatic or nontraumatic SCI. Pathway 1 is a retrospective study of medical files of patients admitted to one of the collaborating SCI centers between 2005 and 2009. Pathway 2 is a nationwide survey of persons with chronic SCI. Pathway 3 is an inception cohort study including persons with newly acquired SCI. SwiSCI is conducted in collaboration with the Swiss Paraplegic Association and the major specialized rehabilitation centers in Switzerland. Measurement instruments that are to be used in Pathway 2 and 3 cover body structures and functions, activities, participation, life satisfaction, and personal and environmental factors. SwiSCI is a prospective cohort study that will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the lived experience of persons with SCI.

Anxiety and fear are often associated with chronic conditions such as cancer. This paper targets the cost-effectiveness analysis of a cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBT) in comparison to a client-centered, supportive-experiential group therapy (SET) in cancer patients with dysfunctional fear of progression. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from a randomized controlled trial among cancer patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation. The means, 95% confidence intervals [95% CI], incremental cost-effectiveness graphic and acceptability curve were obtained from 1,000 bootstrap replications. A total of 174 patients were included in the economic evaluation. The estimated means [95% CI] of direct costs and reduction of fear of progression were 9,045.03 [6,359.07; 12,091.87] and 1.41 [0.93; 1.92] for patients in the SET and 6,682.78 [4,998.09; 8,440.95] and 1.44 [1.02; 1.09] for patients in the CBT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [95% CI] amounts to minus 78,741.66 [-154,987.20; 110,486.32] for an additional unit of effect. Given the acceptability curve, there is a 92.4% chance that the CBT, compared with the SET, is cost-effective without the need of additional costs to payers. Our main result is the superior cost-effectiveness of the cognitive-behavioral intervention program in comparison to the non-directive encounter group for our sample of cancer patients with high levels of anxiety.