IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v1y2017i4d10.1007_s41669-017-0032-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Frossard

    (Queensland University of Technology
    University of the Sunshine Coast)

  • Gregory Merlo

    (Queensland University of Technology
    Australian Centre for Health Services and Innovation)

  • Tanya Quincey

    (Queensland Artificial Limb Service)

  • Brendan Burkett

    (University of the Sunshine Coast)

  • Debra Berg

    (Queensland Artificial Limb Service)

Abstract

Background Governmental organizations are facing challenges in adjusting procedures providing equitable assistance to consumers with amputation choosing newly available osseointegrated fixations for bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs) over socket-suspended prostheses. Objectives The aims of this study were to (1) present a procedure focusing on tasks, documents and costs of prosthetic care, and (2) share observed obstacles and facilitators to implementation. Methods This research aimed at developing a governmental procedure for the provision of BAPs was designed as an action research study. A total of 18 individuals with transfemoral amputation solely funded by a Queensland State organization were considered. Results The procedure, developed between January 2011 and June 2015, included seven processes involving fixed expenses during treatment and five processes regulating ongoing prosthetic care expenses. Prosthetic care required 22 h of labor, corresponding to AUD$3300 per patient, during rehabilitation. Prosthetists spend 64 and 36% of their time focusing on prosthetic care and other activities, respectively. The procedure required adjustments related to the scope of practice of prosthetists, funding of prosthetic limbs during rehabilitation, and allocation of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees. Approximately 41% (7) and 59% (10) of obstacles were within (e.g. streamlining systematic processes, sustaining evaluation of this complex procedure) or outside (e.g. early and consistent consultations of stakeholders, lack of a definitive rehabilitation program) governmental control, respectively, and approximately 89% (17) of the facilitators were within governmental control (e.g. adapting existing processes). Conclusion This study provides a working plan to stakeholders developing and implementing policies around the care of individuals choosing osseointegration for BAPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Frossard & Gregory Merlo & Tanya Quincey & Brendan Burkett & Debra Berg, 2017. "Development of a Procedure for the Government Provision of Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Using Osseointegration in Australia," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 301-314, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0032-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0032-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-017-0032-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-017-0032-5?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. Drew Carter & Arlene Vogan & Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, 2016. "Governments Need Better Guidance to Maximise Value for Money: The Case of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 401-407, August.
    2. Simon Eckermann & Lynnaire Sheridan, 2016. "Supporting Medicare Health, Equity and Efficiency in Australia: Policies Undermining Bulk Billing Need to Be Scrapped," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 511-514, October.
    3. Axel Mühlbacher & Christin Juhnke, 2013. "Patient Preferences Versus Physicians’ Judgement: Does it Make a Difference in Healthcare Decision Making?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 163-180, 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. Lill-Brith Arx & Trine Kjær, 2014. "The Patient Perspective of Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 283-300, September.
    2. Axel Mühlbacher & Uwe Junker & Christin Juhnke & Edgar Stemmler & Thomas Kohlmann & Friedhelm Leverkus & Matthias Nübling, 2015. "Chronic pain patients’ treatment preferences: a discrete-choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(6), pages 613-628, July.
    3. Do Hwa Byun & Rho Soon Chang & Myung-Bae Park & Hyo-Rim Son & Chun-Bae Kim, 2021. "Prioritizing Community-Based Intervention Programs for Improving Treatment Compliance of Patients with Chronic Diseases: Applying an Analytic Hierarchy Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Kendra J. Kamp & Kelly Brittain, 2018. "Factors that Influence Treatment and Non-treatment Decision Making Among Individuals with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Integrative Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 271-284, June.
    5. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Franz-Werner Dippel & Christin Juhnke, 2018. "Treatment Preferences in Germany Differ Among Apheresis Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 477-493, April.
    6. Elkins, Rosemary Kate & Schurer, Stefanie, 2017. "Introducing a GP copayment in Australia: Who would carry the cost burden?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(5), pages 543-552.
    7. Severin, Franziska & Hess, Wolfgang & Schmidtke, Jörg & Mühlbacher, Axel & Rogowski, Wolf, 2015. "Value judgments for priority setting criteria in genetic testing: A discrete choice experiment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 164-173.
    8. Bing Wang & Renee Santoreneos & Hossein Afzali & Lynne Giles & Helen Marshall, 2018. "Costs of Invasive Meningococcal Disease: A Global Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(10), pages 1201-1222, October.
    9. Yi Qian & Jorge Arellano & A. Brett Hauber & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & Guy Hechmati & Francesca Gatta & Stacey Harrelson & Cynthia Campbell-Baird, 2016. "Patient, Caregiver, and Nurse Preferences for Treatments for Bone Metastases from Solid Tumors," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(4), pages 323-333, August.
    10. Sellars, Marcus & Carter, Stacy M. & Lancsar, Emily & Howard, Kirsten & Coast, Joanna, 2024. "Making recommendations to subsidize new health technologies in Australia: A qualitative study of decision-makers’ perspectives on committee processes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    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:spr:pharmo:v:1:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-017-0032-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.