Back

Saving costs and improving clinical outcomes: A two-year cost-utility analysis of emergency department care models for managing persons presenting with musculoskeletal pain using hybrid modelling

Gagnon, R.; Chouinard, N. H.; Perreault, K.; LaRue, S.; Berthelot, S.; Marchand, J.; Gatovo, K. E.; Hebert, L. J.; Guertin, J. R.

2025-09-07 emergency medicine
10.1101/2025.09.05.25335189 medRxiv
Show abstract

As access to primary healthcare remains challenging, numerous persons presenting musculoskeletal pain will visit the emergency department (ED) to receive care. Several approaches have been tried to optimize their management, such as the implementation of ED physiotherapy care models. However, no study has evaluated the efficiency of ED care models used to manage musculoskeletal pain beyond three months. This study evaluated the two-year efficiency of two ED care models (i.e., management by an emergency physician, management by a physiotherapist and an emergency physician) by conducting a cost-utility analysis using a hybrid mathematical model (decision tree + Markov model) from two different perspectives: Public Payer and Society. Data for this study came from a randomized clinical trial (n=78, #NCT04009369) and from the scientific and grey literature. A probabilistic approach was used to ensure the results robustness (Monte Carlo simulation, n=10,000 iterations). All costs were reported in CAD 2024 values. After two years, mean total cost per person for the physiotherapist and emergency physician management was lower than that of usual management by an emergency physician under both perspectives (Public Payer: $6,150 vs $6,840; Society: $30,978 vs $47,222). Mean quality of life gain was also higher in persons managed by a physiotherapist and an emergency physician (1.57 vs 1.47 quality-adjusted life years, QALYs). Management by a physiotherapist and an emergency physician was dominant under both perspectives. Integrating physiotherapists in EDs could result in long-term savings for the Public Payer and Society, while also helping to improve patients clinical outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.