
==== Front
BMJ Open
BMJ Open
bmjopen
bmjopen
BMJ Open
2044-6055
BMJ Publishing Group BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR

39242164
10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086800
bmjopen-2024-086800
Original Research
Health Economics
1701
1506
Cost-effectiveness analysis of app-delivered self-management support (selfBACK) in addition to usual care for people with low back pain in Denmark
@LineLpk
Kongstad Line Planck 1lpkongstad@health.sdu.dk

https://twitter.com/CeciKOveraas
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4395-8265
Øverås Cecilie Krage 23cecilie.overas@ntnu.no

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2064-9942
Skovsgaard Christian Volmar 1chsko@health.sdu.dk

LouiseSandal
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8436-1046
Sandal Louise Fleng 4lsandal@health.sdu.dk

https://twitter.com/janhartvigsen
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5876-7410
Hartvigsen Jan 45jhartvigsen@health.sdu.dk

https://twitter.com/KASogaard
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-6364
Søgaard Karen 46ksogaard@health.sdu.dk

mork_paul
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-2680
Mork Paul Jarle 2paul.mork@ntnu.no

https://twitter.com/MStochkendahl
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0297-8267
Stochkendahl Mette Jensen 45m.jensen@kiroviden.sdu.dk

1 Department of Public Health, DaCHE - Danish Centre for Health Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
2 Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
3 The Norwegian Chiropractors' Research Foundation - Et Liv i Bevegelse (ELiB), Oslo, Norway
4 Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
5 Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
6 Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

All authors of this paper, except the health economists LPK and CVS, have been involved in the EU project selfBACK. The company selfBack Aps is introducing the selfBACK system to the commercial market via a licensing agreement with the NTNU Technology Transfer Office. Authors affiliated with NTNU may in the future receive personal compensation according to the licensing agreement with the NTNU Technology Transfer Office. Furthermore, Center for Muscle and Joint Health at the University of Southern Denmark may in the future receive research funding according to the licensing agreement with the NTNU Technology Transfer Office.

Dr; cecilie.overas@ntnu.no
2024
05 9 2024
14 9 e08680002 4 2024
09 8 2024
Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of individually tailored self-management support, delivered via the artificial intelligence-based selfBACK app, as an add-on to usual care for people with low back pain (LBP).

Design

Secondary health-economic analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 9-month follow-up conducted from a Danish national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario).

Setting

Primary care and an outpatient spine clinic in Denmark.

Participants

A subset of Danish participants in the selfBACK RCT, including 297 adults with LBP randomised to the intervention (n=148) or the control group (n=149).

Interventions

App-delivered evidence-based, individually tailored self-management support as an add-on to usual care compared with usual care alone among people with LBP.

Outcome measures

Costs of healthcare usage and productivity loss, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol-5L Dimension Questionnaire, meaningful changes in LBP-related disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), costs (healthcare and productivity loss measured in Euro) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results

The incremental costs were higher for the selfBACK intervention (mean difference €230 (95% CI −136 to 595)), where ICERs showed an increase in costs of €7336 per QALY gained in the intervention group, and €1302 and €1634 for an additional person with minimal important change on the PSEQ and RMDQ score, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold value of €23250, the selfBACK intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective. Analysis of productivity loss was very sensitive, which creates uncertainty about the results from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity.

Conclusions

From a healthcare perspective, the selfBACK intervention is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment for people with LBP. However, including productivity loss introduces uncertainty to the results.

Trial registration number

NCT03798288.

Self-Management
Artificial Intelligence
Randomized Controlled Trial
Primary Health Care
HEALTH ECONOMICS
Back pain
European Union 689043 Danish Chiropractic Foundation A4526
==== Body
pmcSTRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

A key strength is the ability to link trial data with national registries, which had no missing data on costs and no need for imputation, increasing the study’s internal validity.

A limitation is that this is a secondary analysis from a trial focusing on reducing low back pain-related disability through individually tailored self-management support, not specifically designed for a health-economic evaluation.

The analysis concerning productivity loss is limited to all-cause, long-term sickness absence and a few persons. Thus, these results should be interpreted cautiously.

However, adding a societal perspective to the analysis broadens the evaluation and may strengthen the evidence base for decision-makers to consider both a healthcare and societal perspective.

Introduction

Digital health interventions (DHIs), such as receiving health information via smartphone apps (mHealth), have great potential to enhance health and healthcare delivery. The value of mHealth resides largely in the accessibility and scalability of smartphone apps, and within these lies the potential for enhanced cost-effectiveness, higher-quality care processes1 and the facilitation of health-promoting self-management behaviours.2 Under these assumptions, several countries, including Denmark, have included DHIs in their National digital health strategies, intending to bring patients and healthcare systems closer together.3

Supported self-management is a hallmark of high-quality care for most conditions,4 including patients with low back pain (LBP). Supported self-management is recommended in clinical guidelines for LBP,5 6 and healthcare professionals are encouraged to assist patients in achieving successful self-management strategies.7 LBP is a highly prevalent and costly condition, and its prevalence is expected to rise in the future.8 With limited resources in healthcare systems, mHealth may be important in meeting future resource challenges relating to the societal and healthcare costs of LBP. Meta-analyses have documented the effectiveness of DHI, including self-management programmes for LBP, in reducing pain and improving function in musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions.9 10 Some evidence indicates that DHIs across various MSK conditions are cost-effective,11 but the cost-effectiveness of mHealth solutions for LBP is currently not well established.12

One example of a mHealth intervention is the selfBACK system.13 14 selfBACK offers individually tailored self-management advice concordant with national and international clinical guidelines for LBP, delivered through an artificial intelligence (AI)-based app.6 15 In a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Denmark and Norway, we tested the clinical effectiveness of the selfBACK system as an add-on to usual care and showed a small but statistically significant reduction in LBP-related disability with uncertain clinical significance compared with usual care after 3 months.16 Similarly, secondary outcomes favoured the intervention and results were sustained at 9 months. No adverse events were reported, and secondary analyses imply no difference in effect among subgroups.1720 The cost-effectiveness of interventions is, alongside clinical efficacy, important information informing resource allocation decisions also in clinically comparable interventions, as the results may have implications in terms of cost savings.21

In this secondary analysis of the selfBACK RCT, we aimed to evaluate the 9 months cost–utility and cost-effectiveness of the AI-based selfBACK app in addition to usual care vs usual care alone. The analysis was restricted to Danish participants, and the specific research objectives were to compare the selfBACK app to usual care in terms of (1) the mean per-person additional costs, (2) the incremental effectiveness in terms of quality of life, LBP-related disability and self-efficacy and (3) the incremental cost–utility and cost-effectiveness.

Methods

Study design

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a national healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity (secondary scenario). The national healthcare perspective includes the monetary costs of healthcare utilisation. This perspective was chosen because treatment for LBP in primary care in Denmark is primarily financed by the government-funded national healthcare sector. Further, to evaluate the potential impact of including productivity loss, we performed an analysis from a societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (see Cost measures under Outcomes). The societal perspective considers everyone who may be affected by the intervention, including patients, employers, payers and society, but it does not matter who pays the cost and who receives the benefit.

The analysis was conducted as a within-trial analysis using the 9-month time frame of the trial. Data from the selfBACK trial were combined with individual-level data on healthcare resource utilisation and sickness absence from national registers. All costs and effects were calculated for the selfBACK intervention group and the usual care group. The study followed the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards reporting guidelines for economic evaluations.22 The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03798288) before participant recruitment, and a statistical analysis plan was also registered there for this economic evaluation. Full details of the protocol13 and the clinical outcomes of the trial16 have been published elsewhere. Here, we provide a brief overview of the RCT.

Trial design and participants

Eligible participants were 18 years or older, had non-specific LBP within the last 8 weeks, scored 6 points or higher on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at the time of screening, had consulted a primary care clinician (general practitioner, physiotherapist or chiropractor) or an outpatient spine clinic (Spine Centre of Southern Denmark) from 8 March 2019 to 14 December 2019. A total of 461 participants were included in the selfBACK trial, whereby 317 participants were from Denmark. Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks with random sizes from 4 to 20 and stratified by country and referring clinician type. Only Danish participants were asked to consent to cross-referencing their information with national register data, and hence, the Norwegian participants were excluded from the current analysis. The current study was based on the data from the 297 Danish participants who provided both their unique personal identification numbers and consented to the linkage of their data to national health registries for research purposes.

Intervention

The selfBACK intervention comprises an app-delivered, evidence-based decision support system that, guided by case-based reasoning (a branch of knowledge-based AI), provides weekly, individually tailored self-management recommendations for three main components that are endorsed by clinical LBP guidelines: (1) physical activity (number of daily steps), (2) strength and flexibility exercises and (3) daily educational messages. In addition, the app provides general information about LBP and access to several tools (goal setting, mindfulness audios, pain-relieving exercises and sleep reminders) that participants could use at their convenience.23 The intervention group had access to the selfBACK app during the entire trial period as an add-on to usual care. The control group managed their LBP according to the advice or treatment offered by their healthcare professional.

Patient and public involvement

The content of the selfBACK system was developed using an intervention mapping process that included stakeholders and representatives from the target population. In addition, a process evaluation of the trial explored participants’ experience with the selfBACK system. No patient or public involvement was involved in the study design or interpretation of the current study’s results.

Outcomes

Cost measures

Data from the selfBACK trial were linked with individual-level data on healthcare resource utilisation from relevant registers hosted by Statistics Denmark and The Danish Health Data Authority. These included (1) all primary sector services provided by general practitioners, chiropractors, physiotherapists and medical specialists from the National Health Service Registry (Sygesikringsregisteret),24 except fully self-financed or private health insurance-paid consultations (estimated less than 10%) and (2) all secondary sector care utilisation related to assessments, tests and procedures at spine centres and rheumatology, neurology, orthopaedic and neurosurgery departments from the National Patient Registry (Landspatientregisteret)25 and (3) relevant redeemed prescriptive medication from the National Prescription Registry (Lægemiddeldatabasen).26

All directly and indirectly related costs covered by the publicly funded healthcare budget were included. Primary healthcare costs included all services (not restricted to LBP) and were valued according to the prevailing fee schedules agreed on in the collective agreement negotiated between the organisations of private healthcare practitioners and the Danish Regions (public payer). Hospital healthcare costs were valued using official hospital diagnosis-related group tariffs provided by the National Health Data Authority. Costs of prescriptive medication were calculated based on prices charged by the pharmacies (excluding VAT) (see table 1 in the Results section for details regarding included types of medication).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics

	Control(n=148)	selfBACK(n=149)	P value	
Recruitment setting	
 General practitioner, no. (%)	4 (2.7)	3 (2.0)	0.70	
 Physiotherapist, no. (%)	44 (29.7)	43 (28.9)	0.87	
 Chiropractor, no. (%)	55 (37.2)	56 (37.6)	0.94	
 Outpatient spine clinic, no. (%)	45 (30.4)	47 (31.5)	0.83	
Demographic characteristics	
 Age, years, mean (SD)	50.3 (13.8)	51.1 (15.2)	0.65	
 Sex (female), no. (%)	84 (56.8)	80 (53.7)	0.60	
 Less than 10 years of education, no. (%)	14 (9.5)	17 (11.4)	0.58	
 10–12 years of education, no. (%)	51 (34.5)	47 (31.5)	0.60	
 More than 12 years of education, no. (%)	83 (56.1)	85 (57.0)	0.87	
Clinical characteristics	
 LBP intensity level, NRS range: 0–10, mean (SD)	4.9 (1.8)	4.9 (1.9)	0.81	
 Duration of current pain episode: >12 weeks, no. (%)	98 (66.2)	89 (59.7)	0.25	
Costs, 2022 euros	
 Healthcare costs 12 months before baseline				
  Median (IQR)	493.3 (805.3)	636.3 (1041.0)		
  Mean (SD)	1053 (1755)	1197 (1848)	0.49	
 Productivity loss 12 months before baseline				
  Median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)		
  Mean (SD)	1763 (5542)	3209 (9107)	0.10	
LBP, low back pain; NRS, Numeric Rating Scale

In the scenario applying a limited societal perspective, the cost of productivity loss due to any long-term absence (≥4 weeks) from paid work was also included. Productivity loss was estimated using the human capital method based on weeks of all-cause long-term absence from work for participants who were not retired at baseline. The value of forgone earnings was assessed by the unadjusted national average gross wage. Data on formal production loss, measured in terms of long-term sickness absence, were retrieved from the Danish Register for Evaluation of Marginalisation,27 which contains weekly information on social transfer payments, including sickness absence benefits beyond 4 weeks for all residents in Denmark. The societal perspective was limited as no information was available regarding costs related to short-term sickness absence (<4 weeks), presenteeism or other types of time loss from work or other usual activities.

The intervention costs, defined as the valuation of the selfBACK intervention, were based on the list price of the selfBACK app reported by the company SelfBack Aps. A 3-month licence fee costs €67 (DKK500) and €3.6 (DKK27) per subsequent month. Participants had access to the app for 9 months, corresponding to a total cost of €89. All monetary values were inflated to 2022 euros using the Net Price Index maintained by Statistics Denmark. Since all costs and outcomes occur within 1 year, discounting was not applied.

Effectiveness measures

The primary effectiveness measure for this secondary analysis was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were calculated based on the generic utility-based health status instrument, EuroQol-5L Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) collected at baseline, week 6 and months 3, 6 and 9, and weighted according to the Danish value set status.28 The 9-month QALYs were calculated by multiplying the utilities by the time a person spent in a particular health state. Transitions between health states were linearly interpolated. Two secondary clinical effect measures were assessed using the proportion of participants with a minimal important change (MIC) from baseline to 9 months on the (1) RMDQ (improvement ≥4 points)29 and (2) the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ; improvement ≥5.5).30 31

Statistical analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted based on the intention-to-treat principle and with the current guidelines on conducting economic evaluations alongside clinical studies.21

To account for missing outcome data at follow-up, multiple imputation based on fully conditional specifications was used. As described in the statistical analysis plan for the main trial, 20 replications of imputed data sets were created and analysed separately and the results pooled using Rubin’s rules.32 There were no missing cost data.

Multivariable regression analyses were used to estimate incremental costs and QALYs. As costs were right-skewed and QALYs left-skewed, general linear models with a gamma family and a log function were applied for both the costs and QALY regressions. The choice of distributional family and link function was informed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the Akaike information criteria. The secondary clinical effectiveness measures were analysed using general linear models with a Poisson family and a log function.

Two models were estimated for all outcomes; a base-case model and a model adjusting for baseline characteristics following evidence-based recommendations as in the main trial: age (years), sex (male vs female), educational achievement (<10, 10–12 or >12 years of education), duration of current pain episode (<1, 1–4, 5–12 or >12 weeks), and average pain intensity level in the past week at baseline (0–10 scale). In estimating costs and QALYs, the base-case model included healthcare costs during 12 months of prebaseline and baseline QALY values.33

Several sensitivity analyses were performed. The models were estimated for each outcome as a complete case analysis restricted to participants who completed respectively all EQ-5D questions (n=202), the RMDQ (n=201) and the PSEQ (n=205). Furthermore, a tornado diagram was conducted for the primary scenario to show the influence of changing selected parameter values on the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) when other factors remain at their base values. The following parameters were examined: QALYs in the intervention group changed by ±20%, primary care costs in the intervention group changed by ±20%, medicine costs in the intervention group changed by ±20% and hospital costs in the intervention group changed by ±20% and the app price halved or doubled.

Cost-effectiveness

The primary outcome was the ICER calculated as the difference in mean costs between the selfBACK and control groups divided by the difference between the two groups’ mean QALYs. For the secondary outcomes, ICERs were calculated as the cost per additional participant with an MIC on the RMDQ and PSEQ scores, respectively. The statistical uncertainty in the estimated ICERs was assessed using non-parametric bootstrapping with 1000 iterations, and the ICER for each iteration was plotted in a cost-effectiveness plane (ICER plane). The cost-effectiveness planes comprise four quadrants determined by the combination of the costs (incremental cost) and health effects (incremental effectiveness) associated with the intervention compared with the control. ICERs with a positive value fall into either the north-east (more effective, but more costly) or south-west quadrants (less effective but saves money). Lower ICERs suggest the intervention is more cost-effective (ie, benefits come at a relatively lower cost). In addition, the probability that the selfBACK intervention was cost-effective was evaluated using a range of hypothetical threshold values for the willingness to pay (WTP) for a QALY. The results were presented graphically as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), which show the probability of cost-effectiveness on the y-axis and WTP thresholds (cost per QALY gained) on the x-axis.

P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed by using STATA V.18.

Results

Descriptives

Of the 297 Danish participants, 148 were randomised to the selfBACK intervention while 149 were randomised to the control group. The participant characteristics at baseline are provided in table 1. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. The typical participant was a well-educated woman around 50 years old, recruited from a chiropractor, who had experienced moderate pain for more than 12 weeks (see online supplemental table 1 for EQ-5D index scores for the intervention and control groups).

Costs

Table 2 shows the costs by type of healthcare service, pharmaceuticals and productivity loss between baseline and 9 months of follow-up. Pharmaceuticals constitute the largest part of the healthcare costs. Average costs related to productivity losses were higher than total healthcare costs. However, as the median and IQR indicate, only very few patients experienced long-term sickness absence. Apart from the intervention costs, no statistically significant differences in costs were found between the groups.

Table 2 Unadjusted costs within the 9 months of follow-up, 2022 euros

	Control(n=148)	selfBACK(n=149)	P value	
Primary care	
 General practitioner, median (IQR)	129.5 (147.4)	141.2 (165.0)	0.88	
 Physiotherapist, median (IQR)	39.7 (63.0)	32.0 (57.3)	0.29	
 Chiropractor, median (IQR)	6.8 (62.8)	6.8 (59.2)	0.76	
 In total, median (IQR)	217.6 (168.9)	220.1 (185.6)	0.75	
Hospital—back related, any type	
 Inpatient admission, median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.18	
 Outpatient (elective), median (IQR)	0.0 (373.5)	0.0 (264.9)	0.67	
 Outpatient/A&E (acute), median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.16	
 In total, median (IQR)	0.0 (373.5)	0.0 (283.4)	0.59	
Pharmaceutical—ATC group*	
 Digestive organs and metabolism, median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (22.6)	0.08	
 Antithrombotic, median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.58	
 Cardiovascular system, median (IQR)	0.0 (99.0)	0.0 (88.5)	0.58	
 Musculoskeletal system, median (IQR)	0.0 (46.8)	0.0 (48.0)	0.98	
 Nervous system, median (IQR)	35.2 (136.2)	44.8 (188.6)	0.28	
 Respiratory system, median (IQR)	0.0 (0.0)	0.0 (0.0)	0.97	
 In total, median (IQR)	209.2 (551.9)	280.5 (789.7)	0.61	
Total healthcare costs				
 Median (IQR)	661.2 (892.0)	878.8 (1137.4)		
 Mean (SD)	1175 (1714)	1296 (1695)	0.54	
Intervention costs				
 Median (IQR)	0.0	89.0		
 Mean (SD)	0.0	89.0	0.00	
Productivity loss				
 Median (IQR)	(0.0)	(0.0)		
 Mean (SD)	1495 (4972)	2377 (7596)	0.24	
Total costs				
 Median (IQR)	806.7 (1727.8)	1161.7 (2101.9)		
 Mean (SD)	2670 (5549)	3762 (7887)	0.17	
Unadjusted average costs per participant in the period from baseline to 9 months in the control and intervention group. ATC codes: A02A, A02BC, A06AB, A06AD, A06AG, A06AH, A08, A10, B01A*, C01D, C02, C03AA, C03AA, C03AB, C03BA, C07, C08, C09A, C09B, C09C, C09DA, C09DB, C09XA, C10A, C10BA, M01A, M02AA, M02AB, M03, M05*, N02, N06A, R03.

* Including all underlying ATC groups.

A&EAccident & EmergencyATCAnatomical Therapeutic Chemical

Table 3 shows the estimated incremental costs for the selfBACK group compared with the control group. The average costs for the selfBACK group were similar to the costs in the control group (mean difference €230 (95% CI −€136 to €595)) (see online supplemental table 2 for unadjusted results). Compared with the results from the healthcare perspective (primary scenario), the analysis in the scenario including productivity costs showed higher average costs (mean difference €589 (95% CI −€2120 to €3298)); but again, the difference in costs between the two groups was insignificant (see table 3B).

Table 3 Incremental costs, effect and cost-effectiveness ratio based on imputed observations—model adjusted for baseline characteristics

	Incremental costs, €(95% CI)	Incremental effect (95% CI)	ICER €	CE planes	
NE	NW	SE	SW	
(A): Healthcare perspective (primary scenario)	
QALY (n=297)	230 (−136 to 595)	0.03 (0.01 to 0.05)	7336	91.4%	0.0%	8.6%	0.0%	
MIC PSEQ (n=296)	230 (−136 to 595)	0.18 (0.06 to 0.29)	1302	92.5%	0.0%	7.5%	0.0%	
MIC RMDQ (n=297)	230 (−136 to 595)	0.14 (0.02 to 0.26)	1634	90.3%	1.1%	8.5%	0.1%	
(B): Societal perspective limited to long-term productivity in the form of long-term absenteeism (secondary scenario)	
QALY (n=297)	589 (−2120 to 3298)	0.03 (0.01 to 0.05)	18 821	77.0%	0.0%	23.0%	0.0%	
MIC PSEQ (n=296)	589 (−2120 to 3298)	0.18 (0.06 to 0.29)	3341	75.8%	0.0%	24.2%	0.0%	
MIC RMDQ (n=297)	589 (−2120 to 3298)	0.14 (0.02 to 0.26)	4192	75.8%	1.2%	23.0%	0.0%	
Note: One participant did not complete the PSEQ at baseline and was not included in the analyses of PSEQ.

CEcost-effectivenessICERincremental cost-effectiveness ratioMICminimal important changeNEnorth-eastNWnorth-westPSEQPain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire ScoreQALYquality-adjusted life-yearRMDQRoland-Morris Disability QuestionnaireSEsouth-eastSWsouth-west

Effectiveness

Table 3 also shows the estimated difference for the three outcome measures. The selfBACK group showed a statistically significant improvement in QALYs (mean difference 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05)) compared with the control group. The percentage of participants with an MIC on the RMDQ and PSEQ was 14% (95% CI 0.02% to 0.26%) and 18% (95% CI 0.06% to 0.29%) higher in the selfBACK group, respectively. The unadjusted estimates were similar.

Cost-effectiveness

The point estimates of costs and effects indicated higher costs and higher effects for the intervention, resulting in positive ICERs for all outcomes. The results showed an ICER of €7336 per QALY gained, and ICERs of €1302 and €1634 for an additional participant with an MIC on the RMDQ and PSEQ scores, respectively. ICERs based on unadjusted models showed similar results (online supplemental table 2). Including productivity loss in the estimation of the ICERs increased the ICERs (ie, less cost-effective) to €18 821 per QALY gained and €3341 and €4192 for an additional participant with an MIC on PSEQ and RMDQ, respectively.

ICER plane

Figure 1 illustrates the results of the bootstrapped iterations of differences in costs and effects in ICER planes, with the results from the analysis in the primary scenario and the scenario including productivity. In the primary scenario, most of the iterations (91.4%) in the plane (figure 1A) were in the north-east quadrant, meaning that the selfBACK intervention was more effective but also more costly. However, 8.6% of the iterations indicated that the selfBACK intervention was more effective and less costly, thereby dominating usual care. The probability of the selfBACK intervention dominating usual care increased when including productivity costs with 23.0% of the iterations in the south-east quadrant (figure 1B). However, most (77.0%) iterations were still in the north-east quadrant. For PSEQ, the distribution of iterations across the four quadrants in the ICER plane resembled that of the primary scenario. RMDQ had iterations in all four quadrants, however, most (90.3%) of the iterations were found in the north-east quadrant similar to QALY and PSEQ (figure 1C,D). Adding productivity loss to the PSEQ and RMDQ ICER planes had the same effect as in the primary scenario.

Figure 1 Cost-effectiveness planes. The cost-effectiveness planes of costs per QALY for the model adjusted for baseline characteristics based on 1000 bootstrap replications showing (A) the ICER plane of costs per QALY in the primary scenario (healthcare perspective including healthcare costs and costs of intervention); (B) the ICER plane of costs per QALY in the secondary scenario (societal perspective limited to healthcare costs, costs of intervention and long-term productivity loss in the form of long-term absenteeism) ; (C) the ICER plane of costs (healthcare costs and costs of intervention) per minimal important change (MIC) on the PSEQ score for the primary scenario and (D) the ICER plane of costs (healthcare costs and costs of intervention) per MIC on the RMDQ score for the primary scenario. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; PSEQ, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Score; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RMDQ, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves

Figure 2 illustrates the CEACs for cost per QALY from a healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to including productivity loss (secondary scenario) and the impact of including productivity in the analysis. The threshold values are plotted on the horizontal axis against the probability of selfBACK being cost-effective on the vertical axis. The shape of the CEACs resembles a logistic function; the probability increased steeply at low values and slowly at higher values, reaching 100% at a value of approximately €35 000. According to NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidelines in UK, the cost-effectiveness threshold is approximately €23 250 (£20 000). At this threshold, the probability of the selfBACK intervention being cost-effective was 98%. Including productivity loss in the analysis reduced the probability to approximately 50%. This probability never reached 100% within a range WTP of up to €50 000.

Figure 2 Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for costs per QALY. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve for cost per QALY from a healthcare perspective (primary scenario) and a societal perspective limited to including productivity loss (scenario including productivity). The curves indicate the probability (y-axis) of the selfBACK app (as an add-on to usual care) being cost-effective compared with usual care, given a specific threshold value (x-axis) for an additional QALY. QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; WTP, willingness to pay.

Sensitivity analyses

Restricting the sample to complete cases did not impact the cost difference from a healthcare perspective nor the probability of an MIC on RMDQ (online supplemental table 3). The point estimate of the MIC on PSEQ increased slightly from 0.18 to 0.26 in the complete case analysis. Including productivity loss increased the cost difference by approximately €40–€100 and the CIs widened substantially. The higher cost estimates resulted in a small increase in the ICERs of two out of three outcomes (health benefits at a higher cost) and a small decrease for MIC on PSEQ due to the increased effect for that outcome. Furthermore, around 27% of the iterations fell in the south-east quadrant of the ICER plane (more effective and saves money), indicating a considerable chance that the intervention dominated usual care (not shown). Contrarily, including productivity loss in the unadjusted model (online supplemental table 3) decreased cost estimates substantially resulting in much lower ICERs. The tornado diagram (figure 3) reveals the ICER varied from €6114/QALY to €9170/QALY, and that changes in the medicine costs have the largest effect on the estimated ICER. A reduction of 20% in medication costs resulted in a negative ICER (more effective and saves money). For all parameters, increasing the parameters by 20% or doubling the app price, still resulted in an ICER below a threshold value of €23 250.

Figure 3 Tornado diagram. Tornado diagram comparing the relative impact of selected parameters on the estimated ICER. The vertical line in the tornado diagram represents the ICER (€7336/QALY) from the primary scenario (model adjusted for baseline characteristics) to provide a reference to the changes in the ICER. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year.

Discussion

The results show that the selfBACK intervention is associated with an increase in health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes, but also higher costs compared with usual care. From a national healthcare perspective, the intervention has a 98% probability of being cost-effective at the NICE threshold value. The probability of being cost-effective reduces to 50% when including productivity loss. Even though the selfBACK intervention is found to have an additional clinical effect compared with usual care, it does not seem to affect the healthcare resource utilisation pattern within the 9-month follow-up period. Including productivity loss in the analyses adds noise to the results. Costs increased for the selfBACK group in both the primary model and the complete-case analysis, with the width of the CIs increasing. However, when not adjusting for baseline characteristics in the complete-case analysis incremental costs decreased substantially. This suggests that the higher productivity cost in the intervention group is driven by specific characteristics of participants with missing outcome data. However, adjusting for baseline characteristics seems to remediate this issue. This indicates that results are very sensitive to the characteristics of the analysed sample and that few participants with large productivity losses impact the results considerably.

Several systematic reviews exist on economic evaluations of DHIs for a variety of health conditions,3436 but only one considers MSK conditions in general,11 and few studies exist for self-management of LBP. Despite the diverse conditions, outcomes and perspectives examined, these studies generally underscore a potentially beneficial impact of DHIs. However, they also emphasise the necessity for future research to adhere more closely to established reporting guidelines for economic evaluations. Two economic evaluations exist on the German mHealth app Kaia. One study found it cost-effective with an ICER of €5486 per QALY based on a Markov model simulation.37 The other reported an ICER of €34 315 per QALY, with the difference between the two results explained by a minimal incremental effect on QALYs in the Monte Carlo simulation.38 The main differences from our study are that the German analyses were model-based with a time horizon of 3 years, the app was a stand-alone intervention,38 39 their study sample size was relatively small, and the quality of life estimates was uncertain due to data inadequacies.

A strength of our study is the ability to link the trial data with data on resource use and costs from various national registries. The registries included complete information for all participants so there were no missing data on costs. Furthermore, the estimation of costs was based on actual activity for the entire period and not on extrapolations of participant questionnaires with shorter recall periods. This strengthens the internal validity of the study. Including all-cause production loss in economic evaluations can be problematic as some participants may stay off work for numerous reasons unrelated to the condition and intervention under scrutiny. Conversely, adding a societal perspective to the analysis broadens the evaluation36 40 and may strengthen the evidence base as it renders the possibility for decision-makers to consider both a healthcare and societal perspective.40 The costs associated with productivity loss in our sample were high in magnitude compared with the healthcare costs. We only have access to data on all-cause, long-term sickness absence and were thus unable to separate absence related to LBP from other causes for sickness absence or to elucidate the effect of the intervention on short-term sickness absence and presenteeism. Not having access to short-term sickness absence data likely causes a significant underestimation of overall productive loss. The RCT was powered to a sample size of at least 350 participants. As the cost-effectiveness is based only on the Danish participants, our cost-effectiveness study is underpowered. Furthermore, the study was not powered to detect differences in costs and the selfBACK trial was not aimed at reducing sickness absence and included people outside the workforce. It would require a larger sample size to draw firm conclusions regarding the effect on productivity loss. Due to the nature of the register data, we have included non-LBP-related costs, and we cannot exclude that some of the incurred costs are unrelated to LBP. However, the randomisation and analytical strategy account for any systematic group differences. Prescriptive medication constituted the largest part of the healthcare costs, but unfortunately, we did not have data on over-the-counter medication utilisation (unless prescribed by a doctor (pack sizes higher than 20 pills require a prescription)). Over-the-counter analgesics are the most frequently used medication for LBP41 and this implies that a large part of the potential effect on the use of analgesics is not included in the cost estimates. Furthermore, this study did not have data on any treatment received outside the public healthcare system. Almost half of the Danish population has access to private health insurance through work, and although not all participants are in the workforce, we have no reason to believe that the groups differ in terms of access to health insurance. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out that we would have seen a difference in the utilisation of healthcare services if the study had access to data on treatment not financed by the national healthcare sector.

DHIs are complex interventions,42 and generalising results between DHIs may be particularly challenging with a lack of transparency concerning methods and context and rapid technological development.40 While the selfBACK app seems valuable for people with LBP, uncertainties exist in the data, necessitating further studies to inform the possible implementation in clinical practice. The selfBACK app aimed to reduce LBP-related disability by promoting better self-management. Self-management encompasses understanding when and how to manage your condition independently and when to seek assistance from the healthcare system. Consequently, effective self-management can lead to reduced healthcare resource utilisation and decreased sickness absence for some individuals. However, for others, it may result in more frequent, appropriate and timely healthcare-seeking behaviours. Making solutions such as selfBACK generally available to people with persistent or recurrent LBP has the potential for real public health impact,43 but the complex patient pathways through the healthcare systems highlight the need for further research to uncover the underlying mechanisms of change to inform healthcare administrators and politicians in making future healthcare decisions.

Participants in both the control and intervention groups were offered a step-detecting wristband as part of the clinical trial. The wristband is not required for the app to work, and the app can easily be linked to other devices, such as smartwatches, or be used without an activity tracker. Therefore, the cost of the wristband was not included in the analysis. However, it might be relevant to include this cost in an assessment of the implementation costs associated with using selfBACK in clinical practice. In addition, the selfBACK system includes the possibility of sharing patient data with a healthcare practitioner through a clinical dashboard. This module was not part of the trial, but future research should consider including costs related to the time spent by the practitioner to be trained and apply the clinical dashboard, and to the implementation and maintenance of the dashboard to their IT system, as well as any potential benefits of using the dashboard. Analyses of equity impact need consideration,44 and finally, there is a need to scrutinise the evidence base for determining the threshold value for willingness to pay, as implementing DHIs based on questionable thresholds may result in ineffective priorities.45

Conclusion

The results show that the selfBACK intervention is associated with an increase in health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes, but also higher costs compared with usual care alone. From a healthcare perspective, the probability of the selfBACK intervention being cost-effective in the primary scenario is 98% at a threshold value of €23 250. The probability of the selfBACK intervention to dominate usual care is 8.6%. The analysis from a limited societal perspective is highly sensitive, and the results’ uncertainty warrants cautious interpretation.

supplementary material

10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086800 online supplemental table 1

Acknowledgements

We want to thank all participants in the study and those who agreed to cross-reference their information with national register data.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Review Process File
05 09 2024

Funding: The selfBACK project was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 689043. This cost-effectiveness analysis has received separate funding from the Danish Chiropractic Foundation (grant no. A4526).

Prepublication history and additional supplemental material for this paper are available online. To view these files, please visit the journal online (https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086800).

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent for publication: Not applicable.

Ethics approval: This study involves human participants and was approved by Danish ethics committee with ID no. S-20182000-24. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

Data availability free text: Requests to access RCT data supporting this study's findings can be made to MJS (m.jensen@kiroviden.sdu.dk) at the Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark and Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. The cost data are available pending permission from Statistics Denmark’s Research Service.
==== Refs
References

1 Abimbola S Keelan S Everett M et al The medium, the message and the measure: a theory-driven review on the value of telehealth as a patient-facing digital health innovation Health Econ Rev 2019 9 21 10.1186/s13561-019-0239-5 31270685
2 Mair JL Salamanca-Sanabria A Augsburger M et al Effective Behavior Change Techniques in Digital Health Interventions for the Prevention or Management of Noncommunicable Diseases: An Umbrella Review Ann Behav Med 2023 57 817 35 10.1093/abm/kaad041 37625030
3 Strategi for digital sundhed - sundhedsdatastyrelsen Available https://sundhedsdatastyrelsen.dk/da/strategier-og-projekter/strategi-for-digital-sundhed Accessed 19-Dec-2022
4 Taylor SJ Pinnock H Epiphaniou E et al A Rapid Synthesis of the Evidence on Interventions Supporting Self-Management for People with Long-Term Conditions: PRISMS – Practical Systematic Review of Self-Management Support for Long-Term Conditions Southampton (UK) NIHR Journals Library 2014
5 WHO WHO guideline for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain in adults in primary and community care settings Available https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240081789 Accessed 23-Dec-2023
6 Stochkendahl MJ Kjaer P Hartvigsen J et al National Clinical Guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy Eur Spine J 2018 27 60 75 10.1007/s00586-017-5099-2 28429142
7 Kongsted A Ris I Kjaer P et al Self-management at the core of back pain care: 10 key points for clinicians Braz J Phys Ther 2021 25 396 406 10.1016/j.bjpt.2021.05.002 34116904
8 Ferreira ML de Luca K Haile LM et al Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 Lancet Rheumatol 2023 5 e316 29 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X 37273833
9 Du S Liu W Cai S et al The efficacy of e-health in the self-management of chronic low back pain: A meta analysis Int J Nurs Stud 2020 106 103507 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103507 32320936
10 Valentijn PP Tymchenko L Jacobson T et al Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials J Med Internet Res 2022 24 e37869 10.2196/37869 36066943
11 Fatoye F Gebrye T Mbada C et al Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis J Med Internet Res 2023 25 e41113 10.2196/41113 37410542
12 NICE Project documents | Digital technologies for managing non-specific low back pain: early value assessment | Guidance | NICE 2023 Available https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-hte10021/documents Accessed 18-Dec-2023
13 Sandal LF Stochkendahl MJ Svendsen MJ et al An App-Delivered Self-Management Program for People With Low Back Pain: Protocol for the selfBACK Randomized Controlled Trial JMIR Res Protoc 2019 8 e14720 10.2196/14720 31793897
14 Mork PJ Bach K selfBACK Consortium A Decision Support System to Enhance Self-Management of Low Back Pain: Protocol for the selfBACK Project JMIR Res Protoc 2018 7 e167 10.2196/resprot.9379 30030208
15 Corp N Mansell G Stynes S et al Evidence-based treatment recommendations for neck and low back pain across Europe: A systematic review of guidelines Eur J Pain 2021 25 275 95 10.1002/ejp.1679 33064878
16 Sandal LF Bach K Øverås CK et al Effectiveness of App-Delivered, Tailored Self-management Support for Adults With Lower Back Pain-Related Disability: A selfBACK Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Intern Med 2021 181 1288 96 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4097 34338710
17 Øverås CK Nilsen TIL Nicholl BI et al Multimorbidity and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain do not modify the effect of the SELFBACK app on low back pain-related disability BMC Med 2022 20 53 10.1186/s12916-022-02237-z 35130898
18 Bardal EM Sandal LF Nilsen TIL et al Do age, gender, and education modify the effectiveness of app-delivered and tailored self-management support among adults with low back pain?-Secondary analysis of the selfBACK randomised controlled trial PLOS Digit Health 2023 2 e0000302 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000302 37738237
19 Nordstoga AL Aasdahl L Sandal LF et al The Role of Pain Duration and Pain Intensity on the Effectiveness of App-Delivered Self-Management for Low Back Pain (selfBACK): Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2023 11 e40422 10.2196/40422 37656023
20 Rughani G Nilsen TIL Wood K et al The selfBACK artificial intelligence-based smartphone app can improve low back pain outcome even in patients with high levels of depression or stress Eur J Pain 2023 27 568 79 10.1002/ejp.2080 36680381
21 Ramsey SD Willke RJ Glick H et al Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report Val Health 2015 18 161 72 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001
22 Husereau D Drummond M Augustovski F et al Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations BMC Med 2022 20 23 10.1186/s12916-021-02204-0 35022047
23 Svendsen MJ Sandal LF Kjær P et al Using Intervention Mapping to Develop a Decision Support System-Based Smartphone App (selfBACK) to Support Self-management of Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Development and Usability Study J Med Internet Res 2022 24 e26555 10.2196/26555 35072645
24 Andersen JS Olivarius NDF Krasnik A The Danish National Health Service Register Scand J Public Health 2011 39 34 7 10.1177/1403494810394718 21775348
25 Lynge E Sandegaard JL Rebolj M The Danish National Patient Register Scand J Public Health 2011 39 30 3 10.1177/1403494811401482 21775347
26 Kildemoes HW Sørensen HT Hallas J The Danish National Prescription Registry Scand J Public Health 2011 39 38 41 10.1177/1403494810394717 21775349
27 Hjollund NH Larsen FB Andersen JH Register-based follow-up of social benefits and other transfer payments: accuracy and degree of completeness in a Danish interdepartmental administrative database compared with a population-based survey Scand J Public Health 2007 35 497 502 10.1080/14034940701271882 17852980
28 Jensen CE Sørensen SS Gudex C et al The Danish EQ-5D-5L Value Set: A Hybrid Model Using cTTO and DCE Data Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2021 19 579 91 10.1007/s40258-021-00639-3 33527304
29 Roland M Fairbank J The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 25 3115 24 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00006 11124727
30 Dubé M-O Langevin P Roy J-S Measurement properties of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire in populations with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review Pain Rep 2021 6 e972 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000972 34963996
31 Nicholas MK The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account Eur J Pain 2007 11 153 63 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008 16446108
32 Rubin D Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys | bibsonomy 1987 Available https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/20a72dbca78fbd5bc8ba192f31f5d5f2f/jwbowers Accessed 18-Dec-2023
33 Manca A Hawkins N Sculpher MJ Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility Health Econ 2005 14 487 96 10.1002/hec.944 15497198
34 de la Torre-Díez I López-Coronado M Vaca C et al Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review Telemed J E Health 2015 21 81 5 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053 25474190
35 Iribarren SJ Cato K Falzon L et al What is the economic evidence for mHealth? A systematic review of economic evaluations of mHealth solutions PLOS ONE 2017 12 e0170581 10.1371/journal.pone.0170581 28152012
36 Gentili A Failla G Melnyk A et al The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature Front Public Health 2022 10 787135 10.3389/fpubh.2022.787135 36033812
37 Lewkowicz D Wohlbrandt AM Bottinger E Digital Therapeutic Care Apps With Decision-Support Interventions for People With Low Back Pain in Germany: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022 10 e35042 10.2196/35042 35129454
38 Lewkowicz D Bottinger E Siegel M Economic Evaluation of Digital Therapeutic Care Apps for Unsupervised Treatment of Low Back Pain: Monte Carlo Simulation JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2023 11 e44585 10.2196/44585 37384379
39 Toelle TR Utpadel-Fischler DA Haas K-K et al App-based multidisciplinary back pain treatment versus combined physiotherapy plus online education: a randomized controlled trial NPJ Digit Med 2019 2 34 34 10.1038/s41746-019-0109-x 31304380
40 Bergmo TS How to Measure Costs and Benefits of eHealth Interventions: An Overview of Methods and Frameworks J Med Internet Res 2015 17 e254 10.2196/jmir.4521 26552360
41 Peck J Urits I Peoples S et al A Comprehensive Review of Over the Counter Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain Pain Ther 2021 10 69 80 10.1007/s40122-020-00209-w 33150555
42 McNamee P Murray E Kelly MP et al Designing and Undertaking a Health Economics Study of Digital Health Interventions Am J Prev Med 2016 51 852 60 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.007 27745685
43 Overview | digital technologies for managing non-specific low back pain: early value assessment | guidance | NICE 2024 Available https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/hte16 Accessed 26-Jun-2024
44 Benedetto V Filipe L Harris C et al Analytical Frameworks and Outcome Measures in Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions: A Methodological Systematic Review Med Decis Making 2023 43 125 38 10.1177/0272989X221132741 36259354
45 Skogli E Stokke OM Vurdering av ny terskelverdien for et godt leveår 2023
