• Value Health · Jul 2015

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Cost-Effectiveness of a Nonpharmacological Intervention in Pediatric Burn Care.

    • Nadia J Brown, Michael David, Leila Cuttle, Roy M Kimble, Sylvia Rodger, and Hideki Higashi.
    • Centre for Children's Burns and Trauma Research, Queensland Children's Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: nadia.brown@uqconnect.edu.au.
    • Value Health. 2015 Jul 1; 18 (5): 631-7.

    ObjectiveTo report the cost-effectiveness of a tailored handheld computerized procedural preparation and distraction intervention (Ditto) used during pediatric burn wound care in comparison to standard practice.MethodsAn economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of 75 children aged 4 to 13 years who presented with a burn to the Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Participants were randomized to either the Ditto intervention (n = 35) or standard practice (n = 40) to measure the effect of the intervention on days taken for burns to re-epithelialize. Direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect cost data during burn re-epithelialization were extracted from the randomized controlled trial data and combined with scar management cost data obtained retrospectively from medical charts. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty in cost and effect differences and cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsOn average, the Ditto intervention reduced the time to re-epithelialize by 3 days at AU$194 less cost for each patient compared with standard practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness plane showed that 78% of the simulated results were within the more effective and less costly quadrant and 22% were in the more effective and more costly quadrant, suggesting a 78% probability that the Ditto intervention dominates standard practice (i.e., cost-saving). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$120, there is a 95% probability that the Ditto intervention is cost-effective (or cost-saving) against standard care.ConclusionsThis economic evaluation showed the Ditto intervention to be highly cost-effective against standard practice at a minimal cost for the significant benefits gained, supporting the implementation of the Ditto intervention during burn wound care.Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.