Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Pressure Ulcers in Spinal Cord Injury

Functional Electrical Stimulation in Spinal Cord Injury: Clinical Evidence versus Daily Practice

“…It is amongst others used for preserving and increasing muscle mass [1,2,3], contracture prophylaxis [4], treating and preventing pressure ulcers [5,6,7,8] neuromodulation [9], motor-learning [10,11] improve and support coughing [12], improve and support function of upper and lower extremities [13,14] as well as reducing spasticity [15,16,17]. However, the findings of the above-mentioned effects were proved in research settings.…”

A systematic review of economic evaluations assessing interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers

“…There were problem in terms of the studies reporting sufficient detail regarding the model assumptions, inputs, sensitivity analysis etc. Only two studies (Iglesias et al, 2006;Mittmann et al, 2011) provided the necessary detail as specified in the BMJ guidance on economic models (Stavros and Alastair, 2011).…”

“…Within the treatment studies two teams (Mittmann et al, 2011;Payne et al, 2009) performed an incremental analysis; no researchers applied discounting; one team (Mittmann et al, 2011) identified a cost-effectiveness threshold; and five (Bergemann et al, 1999;Ferrell et al, 1995;Mittmann et al, 2011;Muller et al, 2001;Payne et al, 2009) undertook some form of sensitivity analysis.…”

“…For the treatment studies: two (Payne et al, 2009;Small et al, 2002) used data from randomised controlled trials to undertake cost-effectiveness analyses; seven (Colwell et al, 1993;Graumlich et al, 2003;Muller et al, 2001;Ohura et al, 2004;Payne et al, 2009;Small et al, 2002;Xakellis and Chrischilles, 1992) included costs as an outcome in a clinical trial; and three used decision modelling (Ferrell et al, 1995;Mittmann et al, 2011). There were four studies (Colwell et al, 1993;Muller et al, 2001;Payne et al, 2009;Xakellis and Chrischilles, 1992) that undertook a micro-costing approach.…”

Developing a Model of Care for Healing Pressure Ulcers With Electrical Stimulation Therapy for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury

“…When interviewing the stakeholders, many were unfamiliar with the EST literature to date and, therefore, were unaware that EST with standard wound care can be more cost-effective compared to standard wound care alone. 40 All community stakeholders reported the issue of high turnover, resulting in fewer staff, higher workloads, and lack of time to consider learning a new practice. Many providers felt overloaded and burdened as a result of concurrent projects or competing initiatives.…”