A Pilot Economic Evaluation of a Nature-Based Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Austria
Résumé fourni par la source
This study presents a pilot cost-benefit analysis of a nature-based therapy (NBT) for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Austria. Within the framework of a randomised controlled trial, we identify cost categories, quantify the costs and benefits, and synthesise findings through a partial economic evaluation. Costs were estimated for two scenarios: the trial setting and a hypothetical roll out. Benefits were valued using contingent valuation to estimate willingness to pay (WTP). The trial scenario costs were €326.27 per patient per day, while the roll out scenario estimated was €171.84 per patient per day. Cost component analysis revealed accommodation and staff as the highest contributors in both scenarios. Marginal WTP was estimated at between €25-€35 per day, indicating patients' perceived added value of NBT over standard clinic-based rehabilitation. These exploratory findings suggest NBT could be financially viable if marginal costs are lower than the estimated WTP. This study provides important preliminary evidence on the economic aspects of NBT, highlighting its potential as a sustainable alternative to standard COPD therapy. We recommend that future research expand upon our initial findings and incorporate economic assessments from the early trial design stage to enable more comprehensive cost-benefit analyses, thus facilitating informed decision-making on the implementation of such programmes.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A Pilot Economic Evaluation of a Nature-Based Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Austria
- Date Crossref
- 28/04/2026
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.