Health economics of interdisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic pain: does it support or invalidate the outcomes research of these programs?
Interdisciplinary rehabilitation has been shown to be effective for treatment of patients suffering from chronic nonmalignant pain with respect to activity level, pain intensity, function, or days of sick leave. However, effects in clinical outcome do not necessarily imply a superiority of the intervention from an economic point of view. Despite an increasing number of cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies, systematic reviews outline the methodological heterogeneity of studies, which makes it impossible to perform meta-analyses and to draw conclusions from the studies. Recent publications add interesting information to the current discussion; these studies cover the long-term development of sickness absence post-intervention and the cost effectiveness of workplace interventions, as well as a collaborative intervention in primary care. Much research has been done, and tendencies of effectiveness are visible, but there is still a long way to go to understand the economic implications of interdisciplinary rehabilitation from the perspectives of society, the health insurers, and the patients.
Department of General Practice, Preventive and Rehabilitative Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany. Annette.Becker@staff.uni-marburg.de
Annette
A
Becker
D059350:Chronic Pain / Q000191:economics* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007348:Insurance, Health / Q000191:economics*; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D008297:Male; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010348:Patient Care Team; D011320:Primary Health Care / Q000191:economics*