Data-set for "Are weekend inpatient rehabilitation services value for money? An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial with a 30 day follow up"

The aim of this study was to determine from a health service perspective if the provision of rehabilitation to inpatients on a Saturday in addition to Monday to Friday was cost effective compared to Monday to Friday rehabilitation alone. Cost utility and cost effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a multi-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial with a 30-day follow up after discharge. Participants were adults admitted for inpatient rehabilitation in two publicly funded metropolitan rehabilitation facilities. The control group received usual care rehabilitation services from Monday to Friday and the intervention group received usual care plus an additional rehabilitation service on Saturday. Incremental cost utility ratio was reported as cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained and an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost for a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in functional independence. 996 patients (mean age 74 (standard deviation 13) years) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 496) or the control group (n = 500).

本研究旨在从医疗服务视角，对比仅于周一至周五为住院患者提供康复服务，与在该时段基础上额外增加周六康复服务的方案，二者的成本效益表现。本研究依托一项多中心、单盲随机对照试验开展成本效用分析与成本效益分析，所有受试者于出院后接受30天随访。研究对象为在两家公立都市康复机构接受住院康复治疗的成年患者。对照组仅接受周一至周五的常规康复服务，干预组则在常规服务基础上，额外获得周六的康复服务。增量成本效用比以每获得1个质量调整生命年（Quality Adjusted Life Year, QALY）所需成本进行报告，增量成本效益比（Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio, ICER）则以获得功能独立性最小临床重要差异（Minimally Clinically Important Difference, MCID）所需成本进行报告。共计996例患者（平均年龄74岁，标准差13岁）被随机分配至干预组（n=496）与对照组（n=500）。