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," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, 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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    9. Andrew Gawron & Dustin French & John Pandolfino & Colin Howden, 2014. "Economic Evaluations of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Medical Management," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(8), pages 745-758, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    14. Katherine Edwards & Natasha Jones & Julia Newton & Charlie Foster & Andrew Judge & Kate Jackson & Nigel K. Arden & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "The cost-effectiveness of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review of the characteristics and methodological quality of published literature," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-23, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Nina van der Vliet & Anita W.M. Suijkerbuijk & Adriana T. de Blaeij & G. Ardine de Wit & Paul F. van Gils & Brigit A.M. Staatsen & Rob Maas & Johan J. Polder, 2020. "Ranking Preventive Interventions from Different Policy Domains: What Are the Most Cost-Effective Ways to Improve Public Health?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-24, March.
    17. Simon van der Schans & Lucas M. A. Goossens & Melinde R. S. Boland & Janwillem W. H. Kocks & Maarten J. Postma & Job F. M. van Boven & Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van Mölken, 2017. "Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendatio," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 43-63, January.
    18. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.
    19. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 601-609, June.
    20. 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.

    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.