IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0219911.html

Certified service dogs – A cost-effectiveness analysis appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Lundqvist
  • Jenny Alwin
  • Lars-Åke Levin

Abstract

Introduction: Individuals with functional impairments or chronic diseases are often in need of assistance in their daily lives. For these individuals it is essential to find novel, cost-effective solutions to meet their needs. Service dogs are dogs that are specially trained to assist individuals with functional impairments and may be able to improve these individuals’ quality of life at a reasonable cost, i.e. be cost effective. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to illustrate the cost of an intervention in relation to its effects and provide important input to decision-makers when setting priorities. Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the cost effectiveness of a certified physical service dog and a diabetes alert dog compared to a regular companion dog. Method: Costs, life years and quality-adjusted life years were estimated over a 10-year time horizon using a decision-analytic model built upon evidence from the”service and hearing dog project”. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per gained quality-adjusted life year. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Costs and effects were discounted with 3% per annum and reported in USD. Results: Compared to a regular companion dog, a physical service dog is cost saving [-6,000 USD] and gives the dog owner more quality-adjusted life years [0.28]. The diabetes alert dog is also cost effective in comparison with a regular companion dog [-4,500 USD, 0.06 QALYs]. Conclusion: This study indicates that a certified service dog is cost saving in comparison with a regular companion dog for individuals with functional impairments or chronic diseases. The uncertainty of the analysis implies that further studies are needed in order to confirm these results. Nevertheless, physical service dogs and diabetes alert dogs show potential to be a valuable support and decision analytic models are useful tools to provide this information.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Lundqvist & Jenny Alwin & Lars-Åke Levin, 2019. "Certified service dogs – A cost-effectiveness analysis appraisal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0219911
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219911
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219911&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0219911?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. Johannesson, Magnus & Borgquis, Lars & Jonsson, Bengt & Rastam, Lennart, 1991. "The costs of treating hypertension -- an analysis of different cut-off points," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-150, July.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    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. Ângela J. Ben & Jeruza L. Neyeloff & Camila F. Souza & Ana Paula O. Rosses & Aline L. Araujo & Adriana Szortika & Franciele Locatelli & Gabriela Carvalho & Cristina R. Neumann, 2020. "Cost-utility Analysis of Opportunistic and Systematic Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Strategies from the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 57-68, February.
    3. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Seabury, Seth A., 2012. "The welfare effects of medical malpractice liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 356-369.
    4. Saskia Schawo & Annemarie Kolk & Clazien Bouwmans & Lieven Annemans & Maarten Postma & Jan Buitelaar & Michel Agthoven & Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen, 2015. "Probabilistic Markov Model Estimating Cost Effectiveness of Methylphenidate Osmotic-Release Oral System Versus Immediate-Release Methylphenidate in Children and Adolescents: Which Information is Needed?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 489-509, May.
    5. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. 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.
    7. Sanjib Saha & Birgitta Grahn & Ulf-G. Gerdtham & Kjerstin Stigmar & Sara Holmberg & Johan Jarl, 2019. "Structured physiotherapy including a work place intervention for patients with neck and/or back pain in primary care: an economic evaluation," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 317-327, March.
    8. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    9. Baptiste Leurent & Manuel Gomes & Rita Faria & Stephen Morris & Richard Grieve & James R. Carpenter, 2019. "Correction to: Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(7), pages 971-971, July.
    10. Sood Neeraj & Philipson Tomas J. & Huckfeldt Peter, 2013. "Quantifying the Value of Personalized Medicines: Evidence from COX-2 Inhibitors," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 101-122, April.
    11. Francisco Jódar-Sánchez & Amaia Malet-Larrea & José Martín & Leticia García-Mochón & M. López del Amo & Fernando Martínez-Martínez & Miguel Gastelurrutia-Garralda & Victoria García-Cárdenas & Daniel S, 2015. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Medication Review with Follow-Up Service for Older Adults with Polypharmacy in Community Pharmacies in Spain: The conSIGUE Program," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 599-610, June.
    12. Hanna Waart & Johanna M. Dongen & Wim H. Harten & Martijn M. Stuiver & Rosalie Huijsmans & Jeannette A. J. H. Hellendoorn-van Vreeswijk & Gabe S. Sonke & Neil K. Aaronson, 2018. "Cost–utility and cost-effectiveness of physical exercise during adjuvant chemotherapy," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 893-904, July.
    13. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    14. Michał Jakubczyk, 2016. "Choosing from multiple alternatives in cost-effectiveness analysis with fuzzy willingness-to-pay/accept and uncertainty," KAE Working Papers 2016-006, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    15. Nicolas A. Menzies & Djøra I. Soeteman & Ankur Pandya & Jane J. Kim, 2017. "Bayesian Methods for Calibrating Health Policy Models: A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 613-624, June.
    16. S. Boyer & M. L. Nishimwe & L. Sagaon-Teyssier & L. March & S. Koulla-Shiro & M.-Q. Bousmah & R. Toby & M. P. Mpoudi-Etame & N. F. Ngom Gueye & A. Sawadogo & C. Kouanfack & L. Ciaffi & B. Spire & E. D, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Three Alternative Boosted Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients in West and Central Africa," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 45-60, March.
    17. Andrew R. Willan & Matthew E. Kowgier, 2008. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a multinational RCT with a binary measure of effectiveness and an interacting covariate," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 777-791, July.
    18. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & Joran Lokkerbol, 2017. "A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 271-296, March.
    19. Mbathio Dieng & Nikita Khanna & Nadine A. Kasparian & Daniel S. J. Costa & Phyllis N. Butow & Scott W. Menzies & Graham J. Mann & Anne E Cust & Rachael L. Morton, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness of a Psycho-Educational Intervention Targeting Fear of Cancer Recurrence in People Treated for Early-Stage Melanoma," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 669-681, October.
    20. John Mullahy, 2017. "Individual Results May Vary: Elementary Analytics of Inequality-Probability Bounds, with Applications to Health-Outcome Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 23603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:plo:pone00:0219911. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.