IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i9-10p1435-1443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost‐effectiveness of semi‐rigid ankle brace to facilitate return to work following first‐time acute ankle sprains

Author

Listed:
  • Francis Fatoye
  • Carol Haigh

Abstract

Aims and objectives To examine the cost‐effectiveness of semi‐rigid ankle brace to facilitate return to work following first‐time acute ankle sprains. Design Economic evaluation based on cost–utility analysis. Background Ankle sprains are a source of morbidity and absenteeism from work, accounting for 15–20% of all sports injuries. Semi‐rigid ankle brace and taping are functional treatment interventions used by Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists and Nurses to facilitate return to work following acute ankle sprains. Methods A decision model analysis, based on cost–utility analysis from the perspective of National Health Service was used. The primary outcomes measure was incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio, based on quality‐adjusted life years. Costs and quality of life data were derived from published literature, while model clinical probabilities were sourced from Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists. Results The cost and quality adjusted life years gained using semi‐rigid ankle brace was £184 and 0.72 respectively. However, the cost and quality adjusted life years gained following taping was £155 and 0.61 respectively. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for the semi‐rigid brace was £263 per quality adjusted life year. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ankle brace provided the highest net‐benefit, hence the preferred option. Conclusion Taping is a cheaper intervention compared with ankle brace to facilitate return to work following first‐time ankle sprains. However, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio observed for ankle brace was less than the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold and the intervention had a higher net‐benefit, suggesting that it is a cost‐effective intervention. Decision‐makers may be willing to pay £263 for an additional gain in quality adjusted life year. Relevance to clinical practice The findings of this economic evaluation provide justification for the use of semi‐rigid ankle brace by Musculoskeletal Physiotherapists and Nurses to facilitate return to work in individuals with first‐time ankle sprains.

Suggested Citation

  • Francis Fatoye & Carol Haigh, 2016. "The cost‐effectiveness of semi‐rigid ankle brace to facilitate return to work following first‐time acute ankle sprains," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(9-10), pages 1435-1443, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1435-1443
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13255
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13255?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    2. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    3. Eleanor Heather & Katherine Payne & Mark Harrison & Deborah Symmons, 2014. "Including Adverse Drug Events in Economic Evaluations of Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Drugs for Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Economic Decision Analytic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 109-134, February.
    4. Manuel Gomes & Robert Aldridge & Peter Wylie & James Bell & Owen Epstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 3-D Computerized Tomography Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy for Imaging Symptomatic Gastroenterology Patients," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 107-117, April.
    5. Chantal Guilhaume & Delphine Saragoussi & John Cochran & Clément François & Mondher Toumi, 2010. "Modeling stroke management: a qualitative review of cost-effectiveness analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(4), pages 419-426, August.
    6. Theresa Tawiah & Kristian Schultz Hansen & Frank Baiden & Jane Bruce & Mathilda Tivura & Rupert Delimini & Seeba Amengo-Etego & Daniel Chandramohan & Seth Owusu-Agyei & Jayne Webster, 2016. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Test-Based versus Presumptive Treatment of Uncomplicated Malaria in Children under Five Years in an Area of High Transmission in Central Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2018. "Predicting EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Utilities from Older People’s Quality of Life Brief Questionnaire (OPQoL-Brief) Scores," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(1), pages 39-54, February.
    9. Billingsley Kaambwa & Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Angelo Iezzi & Aimee Maxwell & Jeff Richardson, 2017. "Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 111-124, January.
    10. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    11. Maximilian Hatz & Reiner Leidl & Nichola Yates & Björn Stollenwerk, 2014. "A Systematic Review of the Quality of Economic Models Comparing Thrombosis Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 377-393, April.
    12. Rosarin Sruamsiri & Piyameth Dilokthornsakul & Chayanin Pratoomsoot & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk, 2014. "A Cost-effectiveness Study of Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Childhood Idiopathic Thrombocytopenia Purpura Patients with Life-Threatening Bleeding," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 801-813, August.
    13. Claire McKenna & Karl Claxton, 2011. "Addressing Adoption and Research Design Decisions Simultaneously," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 853-865, November.
    14. C. Elizabeth McCarron & Eleanor M. Pullenayegum & Lehana Thabane & Ron Goeree & Jean-Eric Tarride, 2013. "The Impact of Using Informative Priors in a Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 437-450, April.
    15. Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
    16. Andrija S Grustam & Nasuh Buyukkaramikli & Ron Koymans & Hubertus J M Vrijhoef & Johan L Severens, 2019. "Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, June.
    17. Fernando Alarid-Escudero & Karen M. Kuntz, 2020. "Potential Bias Associated with Modeling the Effectiveness of Healthcare Interventions in Reducing Mortality Using an Overall Hazard Ratio," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 285-296, March.
    18. Kittiphong Thiboonboon & Pattara Leelahavarong & Duangrurdee Wattanasirichaigoon & Nithiwat Vatanavicharn & Pornswan Wasant & Vorasuk Shotelersuk & Suthipong Pangkanon & Chulaluck Kuptanon & Sumonta C, 2015. "An Economic Evaluation of Neonatal Screening for Inborn Errors of Metabolism Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry in Thailand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Brown, Vicki & Diomedi, Belen Zapata & Moodie, Marj & Veerman, J. Lennert & Carter, Rob, 2016. "A systematic review of economic analyses of active transport interventions that include physical activity benefits," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 190-208.
    20. Astrid Ledgaard Holm & Lennert Veerman & Linda Cobiac & Ola Ekholm & Finn Diderichsen, 2014. "Cost-Effectiveness of Preventive Interventions to Reduce Alcohol Consumption in Denmark," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:9-10:p:1435-1443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.