IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jdisab/v2y2022i1p6-85d732424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Standing Exercise in a Novel Assistive Device Compared with Standard Care for Children with Cerebral Palsy Who Are Non-Ambulant, with Regard to Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Katarina Lauruschkus

    (Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden)

  • Johan Jarl

    (Health Economics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, 22184 Lund, Sweden)

  • Katharina Fasth Gillstedt

    (Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden)

  • Åsa B. Tornberg

    (Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, 22100 Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

Children with cerebral palsy who are non-ambulant cannot stand or walk independently. In Sweden, daily static standing is part of standard care for these children even though it is time-consuming and costly, and while it may benefit the well-being of many children, it is inconvenient for others. A novel stander enables dynamic standing through walking movements. The aim of this study was to compare dynamic and static standing regarding quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Twenty children with cerebral palsy who were non-ambulant were included in this randomized controlled study with a cross-over design. Mean age of the participants was 11.6 ± 3.6 years, nine were female. They participated in four months of static and four months of dynamic standing. Quality of life was assessed with the Caregiver Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities (CPCHILD), which has been shown to be valid and reliable, and is tailored to children with severe cerebral palsy. Information about other aspects of quality of life and about cost-effectiveness was collected by study-specific questionnaires. Dynamic standing was the preferred alternative from the family perspective, as it cost less (€64, p < 0.01) and had greater benefits than standard (static standing) care. From societal and healthcare provider perspectives, dynamic standing had benefits but higher costs than static standing (€290 and €354 respectively, p < 0.01). These findings may contribute to the development of individualized standing recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarina Lauruschkus & Johan Jarl & Katharina Fasth Gillstedt & Åsa B. Tornberg, 2022. "Dynamic Standing Exercise in a Novel Assistive Device Compared with Standard Care for Children with Cerebral Palsy Who Are Non-Ambulant, with Regard to Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness," Disabilities, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jdisab:v:2:y:2022:i:1:p:6-85:d:732424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7272/2/1/6/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7272/2/1/6/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    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. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    2. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    3. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    4. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    7. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    11. Abualbishr Alshreef & Michelle Jenks & William Green & Simon Dixon, 2016. "Review of Economic Submissions to NICE Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 623-634, December.
    12. Yue Yin & Yusi Tu & Mingye Zhao & Wenxi Tang, 2022. "Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
    13. Huajie Jin & Paul Tappenden & Stewart Robinson & Evanthia Achilla & David Aceituno & Sarah Byford, 2020. "Systematic review of the methods of health economic models assessing antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    15. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Stuart Wright & Cheryl Jones & Katherine Payne & Nimarta Dharni & Fiona Ulph, 2015. "The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 615-626, December.
    17. Fernando Hoces de la Guardia & Sean Grant & Edward Miguel, 2021. "A framework for open policy analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(2), pages 154-163.
    18. Jason Madan & Meghan Bruce Kumar & Miriam Taegtmeyer & Edwine Barasa & Swaran Preet Singh, 2020. "SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.
    19. Jesse Elliott & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2020. "Economic Evaluation of Cannabinoid Oil for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(9), pages 971-980, September.
    20. Manal H. El-Hamamsy & Gihan H. Elsisi & Randa Eldessouki & Mohamed M. Elmazar & Ahmed S. Taha & Basma F. Awad & Hossam Elmansy, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of the Combined Use of Warfarin and Low-dose Aspirin Versus Warfarin Alone in Mechanical Valve Prostheses," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 431-440, August.

    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:gam:jdisab:v:2:y:2022:i:1:p:6-85:d:732424. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.