Cost analysis of nurse-lead telephone follow-ups after benign hysterectomy: a randomized, single-blinded, four-arm, controlled multicenter trial.

Authors

Gulnara Kassymova, Thomas Davidson, Gunilla Sydsjö, Ninnie Borendal Wodlin, Lena Nilsson, Preben Kjølhede

Published in

Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. May 02, 2025. Epub May 02, 2025.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the health economics of nurse-led telephone follow-up contacts (TFUs) within six weeks after benign hysterectomy in a societal perspective, using a cost minimization analysis model.
A randomized, single-blinded, controlled, Swedish multicenter study comprising 487 women undergoing benign hysterectomy. The women were allocated 1:1:1:1 to either Group A (no TFUs), Group B (one clinically structured TFU the day after discharge), Group C (as B, but with additional TFUs once weekly for six weeks, in total six TFUs), or Group D (as C, but by applying a coaching technique). Time consumption for planned TFUs, informal care, and the number of unplanned telephone contacts and visits were recorded. Costs were assessed using a cost-per-patient price list for Linköping University Hospital.
The total cost per patient more than doubled in the groups with repeated TFUs (Groups C and D) compared with no TFUs (Group A). Group D demonstrated fewer unplanned telephone contacts and lower informal care costs. Group B, with only one TFU, exhibited the highest time consumption for TFU. The additional costs of six TFUs, with or without coaching, substantially increased the costs. The coaching TFU group (Group D) had the lowest cost for informal care.
TFUs appeared to be costly and an inefficient way of using healthcare resources after benign hysterectomy. The coaching TFU seemed to reduce unplanned telephone contacts and lower informal care costs. Careful consideration of the costs and the impact on clinical outcomes is important before implementing TFU after surgery.
This study is registered retrospectively in ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01526668 on January 27, 2012. Date of enrollment of first patient: October 11; 2011.

PMID:
40314809
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 02 May 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.