2016•Clinical RehabilitationRequires access

Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities

Antti Lahtinen, Juhana Ilmari Leppilahti, Hannu Vähänikkilä, Samppa Harmainen, Pekka Koistinen, Pekka Rissanen, P. Jalovaara

Open publisher page 19 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients). MAIN MEASURES: At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives. RESULTS: Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid's salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control ( p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary ( p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients). MAIN MEASURES: At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives. RESULTS: Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid's salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control ( p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary ( p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 19 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate costs and cost-effectiveness of physical and geriatric rehabilitation after hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective randomised study (mean age 78 years, 105 male, 433 female) in different rehabilitation settings: physically oriented (187 patients), geriatrically oriented (171 patients), and healthcare centre hospital (control, 180 patients). MAIN MEASURES: At 12 months post-fracture, we collected data regarding days in rehabilitation, post-rehabilitation hospital treatment, other healthcare service use, number of re-operations, taxi use by patient or relative, and help from relatives. RESULTS: Control rehabilitation (4945,2€) was significantly less expensive than physical (6609.0€, p=0.002) and geriatric rehabilitation (7034.7€ p<0.001). Total institutional care costs (primary treatment, rehabilitation, and post-rehabilitation hospital care) were lower for control (13,438.4€) than geriatric rehabilitation (17,201.7€, p<0.001), but did not differ between control and physical rehabilitation (15659.1€, p=0.055) or between physical and geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.252). Costs of help from relatives (estimated as 30%, 50% and 100% of a home aid's salary) with physical rehabilitation were lower than control ( p=0.016) but higher than geriatric rehabilitation ( p=0.041). Total hip fracture treatment costs were lower with physical (36,356€, 51,018€) than control rehabilitation (38,018€, 57,031€) at 50% and 100% of salary ( p=0.032, p=0.014, respectively). At one year post-fracture, 15D-score was significantly higher in physical rehabilitation group (0.697) than geriatric rehabilitation group (0.586, p=0.008) and control group (0.594, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Considering total costs one year after hip fracture the treatment including physical rehabilitation is significantly more cost-effective than routine treatment. This effect could not be seen between routine treatment and treatment including geriatric rehabilitation.

Key concepts: Rehabilitation, Medicine, Geriatric rehabilitation, Physical therapy, Hip fracture, Salary, Osteoporosis, Endocrinology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Costs after hip fracture in independently living patients: a randomised comparison of three rehabilitation modalities — Research Paper | ScholarLens