An economic evaluation of an augmented cognitive behavioural intervention vs. computerized cognitive training for post-stroke depressive symptoms

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis

Analysis¹	ΔCosts (€)	ΔEffects	ICER²	Distribution cost-effectiveness plane (quadrant, %)³
				NE	SE (dominant)	SW	NW (inferior)
Base case HADS	−1,912.6	−0.8	2,395.3	5	29	58	8
Unit price day of rehabilitation	−1,787.0	−0.8	2,238.0	6	29	57	8
Friction costs	−796.4	−0.8	997.4	12	23	46	19
Healthcare perspective	−1,281.4	−0.8	1,604.7	3	31	61	5
Base case QALY	−1,912.6	0.01	−160,389.9	5	55	31	9
Unit price day of rehabilitation	−1,787.0	0.01	−149,859.6	4	54	33	9
Friction costs	−796.4	0.01	−66,784.4	12	46	24	18
Healthcare perspective	1,281.4	0.01	107.454.7	52	6	6	36
QALY UK tariff	−1,912.6	0.04	−51.797.4	7	65	22	6

¹Base case analysis values a day of rehabilitation day as a hospital treatment day (€266.53), calculates production costs by means of human capital method, uses the societal perspective to calculate total costs
corrects for baseline differences with regression analysis and calculates utilities with a Dutch tariff. Sensitivity analyses values a rehabilitation treatment day as a rehabilitation contact (€116.81), calculates production
costs with the friction cost method, estimates total cost from a healthcare perspective calculates utilities with a UK tariff
²ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
³NE (northeast quadrant): SM more effective and more costly compared to Edu
SE (southeast quadrant): SM more effective and less costly compared to Edu
SW (southwest quadrant): SM less effective and less costly compared to Edu
NW (northwest quadrant): SM less effective and more costly compared to Edu

ISSN: 1471-2377