RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A proactive integrated approach has shown to preserve daily functioning among older people in the community. The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive integrated primary care program. METHODS: Economic evaluation embedded in a single-blind, 3-armed, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 12 months' follow-up in 39 general practices in the Netherlands. General practices were randomized to one of 3 trial arms: (1) an electronic frailty screening instrument using routine medical record data followed by standard general practitioner (GP) care; (2) this screening instrument followed by a nurse-led care program; or (3) usual care. Health resource utilization data were collected using electronic medical records and questionnaires. Associated costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was undertaken. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was calculated comparing proactive screening arm with usual care, and screening plus nurse-led care arm with usual care, as well as the screening arm with screening plus nurse-led care arm. RESULTS: Out of 7638 potential participants, 3092 (40.5%) older adults participated. Whereas effect differences were minor, the total costs per patient were lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care. The probability of cost-effectiveness at 20,000 per QALY threshold was 87% and 91% for screening plus GP care versus usual care and for screening plus nurse-led care compared to usual care, respectively. For screening plus nurse-led care vs screening plus standard GP care, the probability was 55%. CONCLUSION: A proactive screening intervention has a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care. The combined intervention showed less value for money.
