IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i5p143-d937637.html

Meeting Unmet Needs for Stroke Rehabilitation in Rural Public Health: Explorative Economic Evaluation of Upper Limb Robotics-Based Technologies through a Capabilities Lens

Author

Listed:
  • Natasha Brusco

    (Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3199, Australia)

  • Andrea Voogt

    (Department of Allied Health & Community Services, Northeast Health Wangaratta, Wangaratta 3747, Australia)

  • Melissa Nott

    (Three Rivers Department of Rural Health, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga 2640, Australia)

  • Libby Callaway

    (Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3199, Australia
    Occupational Therapy Department, Monash University, Melbourne 3199, Australia)

  • Mae Mansoubi

    (Digital Health Innovation and Public Health, INTERSECT, Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK)

  • Natasha Layton

    (Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3199, Australia)

Abstract

Rehabilitation technologies are rapidly evolving, presenting promising interventions for people with neurological impairments. Access to technology, however, is greater in metropolitan than rural areas. Applying a capabilities approach to this access issue foregrounds healthcare recipients’ rights and personhood within the discourse on resource allocation. Within this context, this study aimed to investigate the economic viability of robotics-based therapy (RBT) in rural Victoria, Australia. A regional health network developed a model of care to provide equitable access to RBT following stroke. This explorative economic evaluation examined both the clinical and economic impact of RBT program implementation across six program iterations compared to 1:1 out-patient rehabilitation. While clinical outcomes were equivalent, the per patient RBT cost ranged from AUD 2681 (Program 1) to AUD 1957 (Program 6), while the per patient cost of usual care 1:1 out-patient rehabilitation, was AUD 2584. Excluding Program 1, the health service cost of usual care 1:1 out-patient rehabilitation was consistently higher, indicating that an established RBT program may be cost-effective, specifically providing less cost for the same effect. This research demonstrates the economic feasibility of delivering RBT in a regional public health stroke service. More broadly, it provided a reduction in the capability gap between rural and metropolitan stroke survivors by tackling an access disadvantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Natasha Brusco & Andrea Voogt & Melissa Nott & Libby Callaway & Mae Mansoubi & Natasha Layton, 2022. "Meeting Unmet Needs for Stroke Rehabilitation in Rural Public Health: Explorative Economic Evaluation of Upper Limb Robotics-Based Technologies through a Capabilities Lens," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:143-:d:937637
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/5/143/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/5/143/
    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," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. David A. Clark & University of Manchester, 2005. "The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances," Economics Series Working Papers GPRG-WPS-032, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Frances Stewart, 2013. "Nussbaum on the Capabilities Approach," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 156-160, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Natasha Layton & Silvana Contepomi & Maria del Valle Bertoni & Maria Helena Martinez Oliver, 2022. "When the Wheelchair Is Not Enough: What Capabilities Approaches Offer Assistive Technology Practice in Rural Argentina," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Natasha Layton & Johan Borg, 2023. "Assistive Technology and the Wellbeing of Societies from a Capabilities Approach," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-3, January.

    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. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Dyfrig Hughes & Joanna Charles & Dalia Dawoud & Rhiannon Tudor Edwards & Emily Holmes & Carys Jones & Paul Parham & Catrin Plumpton & Colin Ridyard & Huw Lloyd-Williams & Eifiona Wood & Seow Tien Yeo, 2016. "Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 447-461, May.
    3. Jesse Elliott & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Stiripentol for Dravet Syndrome: A Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1253-1261, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Ming-Chang Tsai, 2011. "If GDP is Not the Answer, What is the Question? The Juncture of Capabilities, Institutions and Measurement in the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Report," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 363-372, July.
    6. Rosanna Tarricone & Giuditta Callea & Marko Ogorevc & Valentina Prevolnik Rupel, 2017. "Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 70-92, February.
    7. Axel C Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler, 2021. "Comment on the paper "Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir in hepatitis C genotype 1 infection in Germany: A reanalysis of published results"," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-4, February.
    8. Lisa Masucci & Jaclyn Beca & Mona Sabharwal & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2017. "Methodological Issues in Economic Evaluations Submitted to the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 255-263, December.
    9. Nadia YAKHELEF & Martine AUDIBERT & Bruno PEIRERA & Antoine MONS & Emmanuel CHABERT, 2015. "Cost-utility Analysis of Vertebroplasty versus Thoracolumbosacral Orthosis in the Treatment of Traumatic Vertebral Fractures," Working Papers 201534, CERDI.
    10. James Buchanan & Sarah Wordsworth & Ruth Clifford & Pauline Robbe & Jenny C. Taylor & Anna Schuh & Samantha J. L. Knight, 2017. "Using Genomic Information to Guide Ibrutinib Treatment Decisions in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 845-858, August.
    11. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Wendy Hens & Dirk Vissers & Nick Verhaeghe & Jan Gielen & Luc Van Gaal & Jan Taeymans, 2021. "Unsupervised Exercise Training Was Not Found to Improve the Metabolic Health or Phenotype over a 6-Month Dietary Intervention: A Randomised Controlled Trial with an Embedded Economic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Gries, Thomas & Naudé, Wim, 2011. "Entrepreneurship and human development: A capability approach," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 216-224.
    17. Daisuke Goto & Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Pascal Lecomte & Melvin Olson & Chukwukadibia Udeze & Yujin Park & C. Daniel Mullins, 2017. "Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 685-695, July.
    18. Leo Karlsson & Joseph Ciccolini & Rob Heine & Maddalena Centanni, 2025. "Eco Friendly and Budget Smart: An Economic and Environmental Evaluation of Alternative PD-1 and PD-L1 Inhibitor Dosing Regimens," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 43(12), pages 1433-1449, December.
    19. Andriani, Pierpaolo & Herrmann-Pillath, Carsten, 2011. "Performing comparative advantage: The case of the global coffee business," Frankfurt School - Working Paper Series 167, Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.
    20. Kamolpat Chaiyakittisopon & Oraluck Pattanaprateep & Narisa Ruenroengbun & Tunlanut Sapankaew & Atiporn Ingsathit & Gareth J. Mckay & John Attia & Ammarin Thakkinstian, 2021. "Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(4), pages 571-584, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:143-:d:937637. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.