A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) for post-stroke aphasia.
Chris Flood, Nicholas Behn, Jane Marshall and 7 others
PMID 35108114WHAT IT FOUND
Peer-befriending for post-stroke aphasia was feasible and inexpensive, costing £57.24 per visit.
It did not significantly change total health and social care costs compared to usual care. While one measure suggested potential cost-effectiveness, the study was too small to confirm if the intervention is worth funding.
Key findings
01It was feasible to collect resource use data from people with aphasia using communication support and carer input, with high completion rates.
02There were no statistically significant differences in total health and social care costs between the peer-befriending group and the usual care group at 10 months.
03The probability of the intervention being cost-effective varied by outcome measure: 66% when based on mood improvement, but lower when based on quality of life scores.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was a pilot with a very small sample size (56 participants), meaning it was not powered to detect true differences in cost or effectiveness. Cost data relied on self-report and carer report, which may be subject to recall bias. The intervention costs were low, which can make it easier to appear cost-effective even if clinical benefits are small. The study excluded people who did not speak fluent English before their stroke, limiting generalisability.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that peer-befriending is cost-effective. The mixed results and small sample size mean the evidence is preliminary; the 66% probability of cost-effectiveness was driven by one outcome measure, while others suggested it was not cost-effective.