Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery

Abstract Background Decision-makers need quantifiable data on costs and outcomes to determine the optimal mix of antenatal models of care to offer. This study aimed to examine the cost utility of a publicly funded Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) caseload model of care compared to other models of care...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal for quality in health care 2021-05, Vol.33 (2)
Hauptverfasser: Callander, Emily J, Slavin, Valerie, Gamble, Jenny, Creedy, Deera K, Brittain, Hazel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page
container_title International journal for quality in health care
container_volume 33
creator Callander, Emily J
Slavin, Valerie
Gamble, Jenny
Creedy, Deera K
Brittain, Hazel
description Abstract Background Decision-makers need quantifiable data on costs and outcomes to determine the optimal mix of antenatal models of care to offer. This study aimed to examine the cost utility of a publicly funded Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) caseload model of care compared to other models of care and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting such an analysis to inform service decision-making. Objective To provide a methodological framework to determine the value of public midwifery in different settings. Methods Incremental costs and incremental utility (health gains measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of public MGP caseload were compared to other models of care currently offered at a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Short Form scores were converted into utility values by mapping to the EuroQol 5 dimensions and then converting to QALYs. Costs were assessed from a health system funder’s point of view. Results There were 85 women in the public MGP caseload care group and 72 received other models of care. Unadjusted total mean cost for mothers’ and babies’ health service use from study entry to 12 months post-partum was $27 618 for MGP caseload care and $33 608 for other models of care. After adjusting for clinical and demographic differences between groups, total costs were 22% higher (cost ratio: 1.218, P = 0.04) for other models of maternity care. When considering costs to all funders, public MGP caseload care cost $5208 less than other models of care. There was no significant difference in QALY between the two groups (difference: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.038, 0.018). Conclusion Public MGP caseload care costs 22% less than other models of care, after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There were no significant differences in QALYs. Public MGP caseload care produced comparable health outcomes, with some indication that outcomes may be better for lower cost per woman.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/intqhc/mzab084
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_TOX</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528179901</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/intqhc/mzab084</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2528179901</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-c820f474cbf90acd8a29a2a73587ebfeb2192062801aeacf40356499402968583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhS1ERUvLliXyEhZp_Upis6uueEmV2NB1NHHGxSixU9tpdfkb_cO4uhe2rOYsvnM0M4eQt5xdcmbklQ_l_qe9Wn7DyLR6Qc646lQju75_WbVsZaNa1p6S1zn_Yox3su1ekVMpjdY9F2fkaRdzadA5tMU_YMCcaXR03cbZW2oh4xxhooufHr3DtKc2LisknGiJNBcIE6SpcgmpDxQCvd5ySTD7KjOW4sPdRwp0TXC3QKmREGDeZ5-f_T64mJbKpQdvkU441xXS_oKcOJgzvjnOc3L7-dOP3dfm5vuXb7vrm8bKzpTGasGc6pUdnWFgJw3CgIBetrrH0eEouBGsE5pxQLBOsXq8MkYxYTrdanlO3h9y1xTvN8xlWHy2OM8QMG55EK3QvDeG8YpeHlCbYs4J3bAmv0DaD5wNz0UMhyKGYxHV8O6YvY0LTv_wv5-vwIcDELf1f2F_ABFDl9o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2528179901</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><creator>Callander, Emily J ; Slavin, Valerie ; Gamble, Jenny ; Creedy, Deera K ; Brittain, Hazel</creator><creatorcontrib>Callander, Emily J ; Slavin, Valerie ; Gamble, Jenny ; Creedy, Deera K ; Brittain, Hazel</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background Decision-makers need quantifiable data on costs and outcomes to determine the optimal mix of antenatal models of care to offer. This study aimed to examine the cost utility of a publicly funded Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) caseload model of care compared to other models of care and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting such an analysis to inform service decision-making. Objective To provide a methodological framework to determine the value of public midwifery in different settings. Methods Incremental costs and incremental utility (health gains measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of public MGP caseload were compared to other models of care currently offered at a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Short Form scores were converted into utility values by mapping to the EuroQol 5 dimensions and then converting to QALYs. Costs were assessed from a health system funder’s point of view. Results There were 85 women in the public MGP caseload care group and 72 received other models of care. Unadjusted total mean cost for mothers’ and babies’ health service use from study entry to 12 months post-partum was $27 618 for MGP caseload care and $33 608 for other models of care. After adjusting for clinical and demographic differences between groups, total costs were 22% higher (cost ratio: 1.218, P = 0.04) for other models of maternity care. When considering costs to all funders, public MGP caseload care cost $5208 less than other models of care. There was no significant difference in QALY between the two groups (difference: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.038, 0.018). Conclusion Public MGP caseload care costs 22% less than other models of care, after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There were no significant differences in QALYs. Public MGP caseload care produced comparable health outcomes, with some indication that outcomes may be better for lower cost per woman.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1353-4505</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-3677</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab084</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33988712</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>UK: Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>International journal for quality in health care, 2021-05, Vol.33 (2)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-c820f474cbf90acd8a29a2a73587ebfeb2192062801aeacf40356499402968583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-c820f474cbf90acd8a29a2a73587ebfeb2192062801aeacf40356499402968583</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7233-6804</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1583,1603,27922,27923</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab084$$EView_record_in_Oxford_University_Press$$FView_record_in_$$GOxford_University_Press</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33988712$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Callander, Emily J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slavin, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gamble, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creedy, Deera K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brittain, Hazel</creatorcontrib><title>Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery</title><title>International journal for quality in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Qual Health Care</addtitle><description>Abstract Background Decision-makers need quantifiable data on costs and outcomes to determine the optimal mix of antenatal models of care to offer. This study aimed to examine the cost utility of a publicly funded Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) caseload model of care compared to other models of care and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting such an analysis to inform service decision-making. Objective To provide a methodological framework to determine the value of public midwifery in different settings. Methods Incremental costs and incremental utility (health gains measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of public MGP caseload were compared to other models of care currently offered at a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Short Form scores were converted into utility values by mapping to the EuroQol 5 dimensions and then converting to QALYs. Costs were assessed from a health system funder’s point of view. Results There were 85 women in the public MGP caseload care group and 72 received other models of care. Unadjusted total mean cost for mothers’ and babies’ health service use from study entry to 12 months post-partum was $27 618 for MGP caseload care and $33 608 for other models of care. After adjusting for clinical and demographic differences between groups, total costs were 22% higher (cost ratio: 1.218, P = 0.04) for other models of maternity care. When considering costs to all funders, public MGP caseload care cost $5208 less than other models of care. There was no significant difference in QALY between the two groups (difference: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.038, 0.018). Conclusion Public MGP caseload care costs 22% less than other models of care, after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There were no significant differences in QALYs. Public MGP caseload care produced comparable health outcomes, with some indication that outcomes may be better for lower cost per woman.</description><issn>1353-4505</issn><issn>1464-3677</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkUtv1TAQhS1ERUvLliXyEhZp_Upis6uueEmV2NB1NHHGxSixU9tpdfkb_cO4uhe2rOYsvnM0M4eQt5xdcmbklQ_l_qe9Wn7DyLR6Qc646lQju75_WbVsZaNa1p6S1zn_Yox3su1ekVMpjdY9F2fkaRdzadA5tMU_YMCcaXR03cbZW2oh4xxhooufHr3DtKc2LisknGiJNBcIE6SpcgmpDxQCvd5ySTD7KjOW4sPdRwp0TXC3QKmREGDeZ5-f_T64mJbKpQdvkU441xXS_oKcOJgzvjnOc3L7-dOP3dfm5vuXb7vrm8bKzpTGasGc6pUdnWFgJw3CgIBetrrH0eEouBGsE5pxQLBOsXq8MkYxYTrdanlO3h9y1xTvN8xlWHy2OM8QMG55EK3QvDeG8YpeHlCbYs4J3bAmv0DaD5wNz0UMhyKGYxHV8O6YvY0LTv_wv5-vwIcDELf1f2F_ABFDl9o</recordid><startdate>20210528</startdate><enddate>20210528</enddate><creator>Callander, Emily J</creator><creator>Slavin, Valerie</creator><creator>Gamble, Jenny</creator><creator>Creedy, Deera K</creator><creator>Brittain, Hazel</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7233-6804</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210528</creationdate><title>Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery</title><author>Callander, Emily J ; Slavin, Valerie ; Gamble, Jenny ; Creedy, Deera K ; Brittain, Hazel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-c820f474cbf90acd8a29a2a73587ebfeb2192062801aeacf40356499402968583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Callander, Emily J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slavin, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gamble, Jenny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Creedy, Deera K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brittain, Hazel</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal for quality in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Callander, Emily J</au><au>Slavin, Valerie</au><au>Gamble, Jenny</au><au>Creedy, Deera K</au><au>Brittain, Hazel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery</atitle><jtitle>International journal for quality in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Qual Health Care</addtitle><date>2021-05-28</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2</issue><issn>1353-4505</issn><eissn>1464-3677</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background Decision-makers need quantifiable data on costs and outcomes to determine the optimal mix of antenatal models of care to offer. This study aimed to examine the cost utility of a publicly funded Midwifery Group Practice (MGP) caseload model of care compared to other models of care and demonstrate the feasibility of conducting such an analysis to inform service decision-making. Objective To provide a methodological framework to determine the value of public midwifery in different settings. Methods Incremental costs and incremental utility (health gains measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) of public MGP caseload were compared to other models of care currently offered at a large tertiary hospital in Australia. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Short Form scores were converted into utility values by mapping to the EuroQol 5 dimensions and then converting to QALYs. Costs were assessed from a health system funder’s point of view. Results There were 85 women in the public MGP caseload care group and 72 received other models of care. Unadjusted total mean cost for mothers’ and babies’ health service use from study entry to 12 months post-partum was $27 618 for MGP caseload care and $33 608 for other models of care. After adjusting for clinical and demographic differences between groups, total costs were 22% higher (cost ratio: 1.218, P = 0.04) for other models of maternity care. When considering costs to all funders, public MGP caseload care cost $5208 less than other models of care. There was no significant difference in QALY between the two groups (difference: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.038, 0.018). Conclusion Public MGP caseload care costs 22% less than other models of care, after accounting for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There were no significant differences in QALYs. Public MGP caseload care produced comparable health outcomes, with some indication that outcomes may be better for lower cost per woman.</abstract><cop>UK</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>33988712</pmid><doi>10.1093/intqhc/mzab084</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7233-6804</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1353-4505
ispartof International journal for quality in health care, 2021-05, Vol.33 (2)
issn 1353-4505
1464-3677
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2528179901
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection
title Cost-effectiveness of public caseload midwifery compared to standard care in an Australian setting: a pragmatic analysis to inform service delivery
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T22%3A13%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_TOX&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cost-effectiveness%20of%20public%20caseload%20midwifery%20compared%20to%20standard%20care%20in%20an%20Australian%20setting:%20a%20pragmatic%20analysis%20to%20inform%20service%20delivery&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20for%20quality%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Callander,%20Emily%20J&rft.date=2021-05-28&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.issn=1353-4505&rft.eissn=1464-3677&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/intqhc/mzab084&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_TOX%3E2528179901%3C/proquest_TOX%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2528179901&rft_id=info:pmid/33988712&rft_oup_id=10.1093/intqhc/mzab084&rfr_iscdi=true