PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of manual therapy and usual care for patients with chronic neck pain. A cost-utility analysis alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in five South Korean hospitals. Data were procured from surveys and nationally representative data. Participants were 108 patients aged between 19 and 60 years, with chronic neck pain persisting for at least 3 months and a pain intensity score of ≥5 on the numerical rating scale in the last 3 days. The study was conducted for 1 year, including 5 weeks of intervention and additional observational periods. Participants were divided into a manual therapy (Chuna) group and a usual care group, and quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. The quality-adjusted life-years of the manual therapy group were 0.024 higher than that of the usual care group. From the societal perspective, manual therapy incurred a lower cost-at $2,131-and was, therefore, the more cost-effective intervention. From a healthcare system perspective, the cost of manual therapy was higher, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio amount of $11,217. Manual therapy is more cost-effective for non-specific chronic neck pain management from both a healthcare system and societal perspective.
摘要：
这项研究旨在比较手动治疗和常规护理对慢性颈痛患者的成本效益。在五家韩国医院进行了成本效用分析以及一项实用的随机对照试验。数据来自调查和具有国家代表性的数据。参与者是108名年龄在19至60岁之间的患者，慢性颈部疼痛持续至少3个月，并且在最近3天的数字评定量表上疼痛强度评分≥5分。这项研究进行了一年，包括5周的干预和额外的观察期。参与者被分为手动治疗（Chuna）组和常规护理组，和质量调整寿命年，成本,并计算了增量成本效益比。手动治疗组的质量调整寿命年比常规治疗组高0.024。从社会的角度来看,手动治疗的费用较低-为2,131美元-而且，因此,更具成本效益的干预措施。从医疗系统的角度来看，手工治疗的费用更高，增量成本效益比金额为11,217美元。从医疗保健系统和社会角度来看，手动治疗对非特异性慢性颈痛管理更具成本效益。
