Cost utility of a pharmacist‑led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemEditorial
BMC
Materia
Cost utility Cost efectiveness Minor ailment services Self care Community pharmacy Community pharmacy services Health services
Fecha
2020Referencia bibliográfica
Dineen-Griffin, S., Vargas, C., Williams, K. A., Benrimoj, S. I., & Garcia-Cardenas, V. (2020). Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 18(1), 1-13. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-020-00220-0]
Patrocinador
Consumer Healthcare Products Australia; Australian GovernmentResumen
Background: A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated
the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual phar‑
macist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community
pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communica‑
tion systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly
practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS,
compared to UC.
Methods: Participants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from
community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were
followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted
alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were
not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to
calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used
to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and
probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively.
Results: Patients (n=894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n=732) responded to follow-up. On aver‑
age, MAS was more costly but also more efective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC.
MAS patients (n=524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), com‑
pared to UC (n=370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49–3811.22) per QALY.
Conclusion: Economic fndings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost efective.
Trial registration Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and allocated the ACTRN:
ACTRN12618000286246. Registered on 23 February 2018.