Economic evaluation of an Australian nurse home visiting programme : a randomised trial at 3 years

Objectives To investigate the additional programme cost and cost-effectiveness of ‘right@home’ Nurse Home Visiting (NHV) programme in relation to improving maternal and child outcomes at child age 3 years compared with usual care. Design A cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective alongside a randomised trial of NHV over 3-year period. Costs and quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) were discounted at 5%. Analysis used an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputation. Setting The right@home was implemented from 2013 in Victoria and Tasmania states of Australia, as a primary care service for pregnant women, delivered until child age 2 years. Participants 722 pregnant Australian women experiencing adversity received NHV (n=363) or usual care (clinic visits) (n=359). Primary and secondary outcome measures First, a cost–consequences analysis to compare the additional costs of NHV over usual care, accounting for any reduced costs of service use, and impacts on all maternal and child outcomes assessed at 3 years. Second, cost–utility analysis from a government-as-payer perspective compared additional costs to maternal QALYs to express cost-effectiveness in terms of additional cost per additional QALY gained. Results When compared with usual care at child age 3 years, the right@home intervention cost $A7685 extra per woman (95$A7006 to $A8364) and generated 0.01 more QALYs (95$A50 000 per QALY. Conclusions Benefits of NHV to parenting at 2 years and maternal health and well-being at 3 years translate into marginal maternal QALY gains. Like previous cost-effectiveness results for NHV programmes, right@home is not cost-effective at 3 years. Given the relatively high up-front costs of NHV, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the accrual of health and economic benefits over time

The impact of nurse home visiting on the use, dose and quality of formal childcare : 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial

Objective: We investigated whether nurse home visiting (NHV) affects the uptake and quality of formal early childhood education and care (ECEC) at child ages 2 and 3 years, and reasons for using ECEC at 3 years. Methods: Design: Secondary analysis of the “right@home” randomized trial of NHV. Participants: 722 pregnant Australian, English-speaking women experiencing adversity recruited from antenatal clinics across 2 states. Intervention: 25 nurse home visits to 2 years; Control: universal well-child nursing service. Measures: Parents reported formal ECEC use (government approved and subsidized), comprising long or family day care (LDC), and reasons for use. ECEC quality was classified using the Australian government's national ratings. Eighty-three percent of parents provided data at 2 years (306 intervention/290 control); and 69% at 3 years (255 intervention/240 control). Analysis: Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using adjusted regression models, addressing missing data using multiple imputation and inverse probability weighting. Results: There was no evidence of group differences in ECEC uptake or quality, although control families may have used more LDC at 3 years (mean difference 2.8 hours, 95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 5.8 hours). Intervention parents reported using ECEC to support their children's social development more frequently than controls (48% vs 33%) but less for work/study (39% vs 46%). Conclusions: The right@home NHV program did not impact ECEC uptake or quality, although it may influence parents’ reasons for using ECEC. If supported by policy and provision, there is an opportunity for NHV programs to promote the transition to high-quality ECEC and evaluate the synergistic benefit on children's development

Motivational interviewing with community-dwelling older adults after hip fracture (MIHip): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Community-dwelling people recovering from hip fracture have the physical capacity to walk in their community but lack the confidence to do so. The primary aim of this trial is to determine whether motivational interviewing increases time spent walking at 12 months in community-dwelling people after hip fracture compared with an attention placebo control group. Secondary aims are to evaluate cost effectiveness, patient and health service outcomes and to complete a process evaluation.Methods and analysis An assessor-blinded parallel group randomised controlled design with embedded health economic evaluation and process evaluation will compare the effects of n=270 participants randomly allocated to an experimental group (motivational interviewing) or a control group (dietary advice). For inclusion, participants are aged ≥65 years, living at home independently within 6 months of discharge from hospital after hip fracture and able to walk independently and communicate with conversational English. Key exclusion criteria are severe depression or anxiety, impaired intellectual functioning and being medically unstable to walk. Participants allocated to the experimental group will receive 10 (8 weekly and 2 booster) telephone-based sessions of motivational interviewing to increase walking over 16 weeks. Participants allocated to the control group will receive an equivalent dose of telephone-based dietary advice. The primary outcome is daily time spent walking over 7 days assessed at weeks 0, 9, 26 and 52. Secondary outcomes include measures of psychological-related function, mobility-related function, community participation, health-related quality of life and falls. Health service utilisation and associated costs will be assessed. Process evaluation will assess the fidelity of the motivational interviewing intervention and explore contextual factors through semistructured interviews.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval obtained from Eastern Health (E19-002), Peninsula Health (50261/EH-2019), Alfred Health (617/20) and La Trobe University (E19/002/50261). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and public seminars.Trial registration number ACTRN12619000936123