BackgroundPatient recall or the application of population norms are commonly used methods to estimate (unobservable) health status prior to acute-onset illness or injury; however, both measures are potentially subject to bias. This article reports tests of the validity of both approaches, and discusses the implications for reporting changes in health-related quality of life following acute-onset illness or injury.MethodsRecalled pre-injury health status and health status at 5- and 12-months post-injury were collected from participants in a prospective cohort study of people injured in New Zealand. Reported post-injury health status was compared with recalled pre-injury status and New Zealand norms for two groups: those who reported having fully recovered, and those who had not.ResultsThere was a small but statistically significant difference between pre- and post-injury health state valuations for people who had fully recovered, with recalled pre-injury health status being higher than reported post-injury health. Perceived health status for those who had fully recovered was significantly higher than the population norm.ConclusionsRetrospective evaluation of health status is more appropriate than the application of population norms to estimate health status prior to acute-onset injury or illness, although there may be a small upward bias in such measurements.

This article is published in World Development, 79 (2016), pp. 138-151. Please refer to the link below for the most up-to-date version on the publisher's website.

BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis is a leading global cause of health-related quality of life loss. The aim of this project was to quantify health losses arising from knee osteoarthritis in New Zealand (NZ) in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost.MethodsThe Osteoarthritis Policy Model (OAPol), a validated Monte Carlo computer simulation model, was used to estimate QALYs lost due to knee osteoarthritis in the NZ adult population aged 40–84 over their lifetimes from the base year of 2006 until death. Data were from the NZ Health Survey, NZ Burden of Diseases, NZ Census, and relevant literature. QALYs were derived from NZ EQ-5D value set 2. Sensitivity to health state valuation, disease and pain prevalence were assessed in secondary analyses.ResultsBased on NZ EQ-5D health state valuations, mean health losses due to knee osteoarthritis over people’s lifetimes in NZ are 3.44 QALYs per person, corresponding to 467,240 QALYs across the adult population. Average estimated per person QALY losses are higher for non-Māori females (3.55) than Māori females (3.38), and higher for non-Māori males (3.34) than Māori males (2.60). The proportion of QALYs lost out of the total quality-adjusted life expectancy for those without knee osteoarthritis is similar across all subgroups, ranging from 20 to 23 percent.ConclusionsAt both the individual and population levels, knee osteoarthritis is responsible for large lifetime QALY losses. QALY losses are higher for females than males due to greater prevalence of knee osteoarthritis and higher life expectancy, and lower for Māori than non-Māori due to lower life expectancy. Large health gains are potentially realisable from public health and policy measures aimed at decreasing incidence, progression, pain, and disability of osteoarthritis.

BackgroundEffective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world’s most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control).Methods and findingsThis pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and e...

s u m m a r yObjective: To investigate the clinical-and cost-effectiveness at 2-year follow-up of providing individual, supervised exercise physiotherapy and/or manual physiotherapy in addition to usual medical care. Method: People with hip or knee osteoarthritis meeting the American College of Rheumatology clinical diagnostic criteria were randomised (1:1, concealed, assessor-blinded) to four groups: usual medical care; supervised exercise physiotherapy; manual physiotherapy; or combined exercise and manual physiotherapy. Physiotherapy group participants were provided 10 50-min treatment sessions including booster sessions at 4 and 13 months, in addition to usual care. The primary outcome at 2-year follow-up was incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of each physiotherapy intervention in addition to usual care, compared with usual care alone, from the health system and societal perspectives. To allow interpretation of negative ICURs, we report incremental net benefit (INB). The primary clinical outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: Of 206 patients, 186 (90$3%) were retained at 2-year follow-up. Exercise physiotherapy and manual physiotherapy dominated usual care, demonstrating cost savings; combined therapy did not. Exercise therapy had the highest incremental net benefits (INBs), statistically significant at all willingness-to-pay (base-case: societal New Zealand (NZ)$6,312, 95%CI 334 to 12,279; health system NZ$8,065, 95%CI 136 to 15,994). Clinical improvements were superior to usual care only in the exercise physiotherapy group (À28.2 WOMAC points, 95%CI -49.2 to À7.1). No serious adverse events were recorded. Conclusion: Individually supervised exercise therapy is cost-effective and clinically effective in addition to usual medical care at 2-year follow-up, and leads to cost savings for the health system and society. Trial registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian NZ Clinical Trials Registry, reference ACTRN12608000130369.