IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The economic burden of low back pain in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness analysis from the healthcare provider’s perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Morris Kahere
  • Cebisile Ngcamphalala
  • Ellinor Östensson
  • Themba Ginindza

Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a multifactorial and the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder, whose economic burden is of global concern. Evidence suggests that the burden of LBP in increasing and will continue rising with the greatest burden occurring in low-and-middle-income-countries (LMICs). This study sought to determine the economic burden of LBP in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa from the providers perspective. Methods: We used a retrospective prevalence-based cost-of-illness methodology to estimate the direct medical cost of LBP. Direct medical costs constituted costs associated with healthcare utilisation in inpatient care, outpatient care, investigations, consultations, and cost of auxiliary devices. We used diagnostic-specific data obtained from hospital clinical reports. All identifiable direct medical costs were estimated using a top-down approach for costs associated with healthcare and a bottom-up approach for costs associated with inpatient and outpatient care. Results: The prevalence of chronic low back pain CLBP was 24.3% (95% CI: 23.5–25.1). The total annual average direct medical costs associated with LBP was US$5.4 million. Acute low back pain (ALBP) and CLBP contributed 17% (US$0.92 million) and 83% (US$4.48 million) of the total cost, respectively. The per patient total annual average direct medical cost for ALBP and CLBP were US$99.43 and US$1,516.67, respectively. The outpatient care costs contributed the largest share (38.9%, US$2.10 million) of the total annual average direct medical cost, 54.9% (US$1.15 million) of which was attributed to nonsteroidal-anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The total average cost of diagnostic investigations was estimated at US$831,595.40, which formed 15.4% of the average total cost. Conclusion: The economic burden of LBP is high in South Africa. Majority of costs were attributed to CLBP. The outpatient care costs contributed the largest share percent of the total cost. Pain medication was the main intervention strategy, contributing more than half of the total outpatient costs. Measures should be taken to ensure guideline adherence. Focus should also be placed towards development of prevention measures to minimise the cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris Kahere & Cebisile Ngcamphalala & Ellinor Östensson & Themba Ginindza, 2022. "The economic burden of low back pain in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A prevalence-based cost-of-illness analysis from the healthcare provider’s perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263204
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263204
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263204&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263204?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. Nagede Costa & Helene Derumeaux & Thomas Rapp & Valérie Garnault & Laura Ferlicoq & Sophie Gillette & Sandrine Andrieu & Bruno Vellas & Michel Lamure & Alain Grand & Laurent Molinier, 2012. "Methodological considerations in cost of illness studies on Alzheimer disease," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, December.
    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. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    2. Neubert, Lydia & König, Hans-Helmut & Löbner, Margrit & Luppa, Melanie & Pentzek, Michael & Fuchs, Angela & Weeg, Dagmar & Bickel, Horst & Oey, Anke & Wiese, Birgitt & Weyerer, Siegfried & Werle, Joch, 2021. "Excess costs of dementia in old age (85+) in Germany: Results from the AgeCoDe-AgeQualiDe study," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    3. Huajie Jin & Paul McCrone, 2015. "Cost-of-Illness Studies for Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review of International Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 341-353, April.
    4. Rebecca Addo & Samuel Agyei Agyemang & Yesim Tozan & Justice Nonvignon, 2018. "Economic burden of caregiving for persons with severe mental illness in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    5. Margherita d’Errico & Milena Pavlova & Federico Spandonaro, 2022. "The economic burden of obesity in Italy: a cost-of-illness study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(2), pages 177-192, March.
    6. T. Joseph Mattingly & R. Brett McQueen & Pei-Jung Lin, 2021. "Contextual Considerations and Recommendations for Estimating the Value of Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1101-1107, October.
    7. Jeroen T J M van Dijck & Mark D Dijkman & Robbin H Ophuis & Godard C W de Ruiter & Wilco C Peul & Suzanne Polinder, 2019. "In-hospital costs after severe traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and quality assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-21, May.

    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:pone00:0263204. 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.