INTRODUCTION: Finger stiffness after treatment for metacarpal fractures often occurs due to poor compliance to the conventional rehabilitation programs. Gamification has shown success in improving adherence to and effectiveness of various therapies.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether gamification, using cost-effective devices was comparable with conventional physiotherapy in improving hand functions and adherence to rehabilitation in metacarpal fractures.
METHODS: A 2-group randomized controlled trial involving 19 patients was conducted. Participants were randomized to a control (conventional physiotherapy, n = 10) or interventional group (gamification, n = 9). The grips strength and composite finger range of motion were measured at the baseline and each follow-up together with Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation scores and compliance.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences on improvements of grip strength (means difference 24.38 vs 20.44, P = .289) and composite finger range of motion (means difference 50.50 vs 51.11, P = .886). However, the gamification group showed better results in Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (mean 0.44 vs 8.45, P = .038) and compliance (P cost-effective device demonstrated similar effectiveness as conventional physiotherapy in post-metacarpal fracture rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: Gamification using a mobile device is an inexpensive and safe alternative to conventional physiotherapy for hand rehabilitation after metacarpal fractures. It effectively serves as a guide for future development of cost-effective technology-enhanced therapy.
METHODS: This systematic review searched MEDLINE, CINAHL+, Econlit, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from inception to 31 December, 2022, for relevant economic evaluations, which were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) criteria. The costs, quality-adjusted life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness thresholds were qualitatively analysed. Net monetary benefits at different decision thresholds were also computed. Subgroup analyses addressing the heterogeneity of economic outcomes were conducted. All costs were adjusted to 2023 international dollar (US$) values using the CCEMG-EPPI-Centre cost converter.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine economic evaluations that evaluated dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in patients with heart failure were found: 32 for the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and seven for LVEF > 40%. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors were cost-effective in all but two economic evaluations for LVEF > 40%. Economic outcomes varied widely, but favoured SGLT2i use in LVEF ≤ 40% over LVEF > 40% and upper-middle income over high-income countries. At a threshold of US$30,000/quality-adjusted life-year, ~ 90% of high to upper-middle income countries would consider SGLT2i cost-effective for heart failure treatment. The generalisability of study findings to low- and low-middle income countries is limited because of insufficient evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Using SGLT2i to treat heart failure is cost-effective, with more certainty in LVEF ≤ 40% compared to LVEF > 40%. Policymakers in jurisdictions where economic evaluations are not available could potentially use this study's findings to make informed decisions about treatment adoption.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023388701).
Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of spending on healthcare R&D to address the needs of developing innovative therapeutic products in Indonesia.
Methods: A decision tree model was developed by taking into account four stages of R&D: stage 1 from raw concept to feasibility, stage 2 from feasibility to development, stage 3 from development to early commercialization, and stage 4 from early to full commercialization. Considering a 3-year time horizon, a stage-dependent success rate was applied and analyses were conducted from a business perspective. Two scenarios were compared by assuming the government of Indonesia would increase GERD in health and medical sciences up to 2- and 3-times higher than the baseline (current situation) for the first and second scenario, respectively. Cost per number of innovative products in health and medical sciences was considered as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of different input parameters on the ICER.
Results: There was a statistically significant association (P-value<0.05) between countries' GERD in medical and health sciences with the number of innovative products. We estimated the ICER would be $8.50 million and $2.04 million per innovative product for the first and second scenario, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed that the success rates in all stages and total GERD were the most influential parameters impacting the ICER.
Conclusion: The result showed that there was an association between GERD in medical and health sciences with the number of innovative products. In addition, the second scenario would be more cost-effective than the first scenario.
METHODS: A cost utility study of hemodialysis (HD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) was conducted from a Ministry of Health (MOH) perspective. A Markov model was also developed to investigate the cost effectiveness of increasing uptake of incident CAPD to 55% and 60% versus current practice of 40% CAPD in a five-year temporal horizon. A scenario with 30% CAPD was also measured. The costs and utilities were sourced from published data which were collected as part of this study. The transitional probabilities and survival estimates were obtained from the Malaysia Dialysis and Transplant Registry (MDTR). The outcome measures were cost per life year (LY), cost per quality adjusted LY (QALY) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the Markov model. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: LYs saved for HD was 4.15 years and 3.70 years for CAPD. QALYs saved for HD was 3.544 years and 3.348 for CAPD. Cost per LY saved was RM39,791 for HD and RM37,576 for CAPD. The cost per QALY gained was RM46,595 for HD and RM41,527 for CAPD. The Markov model showed commencement of CAPD in 50% of ESRD patients as initial dialysis modality was very cost-effective versus current practice of 40% within MOH. Reduction in CAPD use was associated with higher costs and a small devaluation in QALYs.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest provision of both modalities is fiscally feasible; increasing CAPD as initial dialysis modality would be more cost-effective.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to find the eligible studies and perform a comprehensive data analysis.
RESULTS: Based on the findings, cost-effectiveness analysis, economic loss assessment, modeling, or mapping, as well as behavioral economic analysis were used as the economic evaluation approaches/methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Applying economic evaluation approaches to illustrate the economic costs of disasters is highly recommended. Managing competing priorities and optimizing resources allocations to the most cost-effective interventions can be achieved by cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of economic loss assessment can be used as the basis of disaster preparedness and response planning. Economic modeling can be applied to compare different interventions and anticipate socio-economic effects of disasters. A behavioral economic approach can be effective for decision-making in the field of disaster health management. Further research is needed to identify the advantages and limitations of each economic evaluation method/approach in the field of health in disasters. Such research can preferably be designed as the systematic review and meta-analysis.