Survey data on the quality of life of consumers fitted with osseointegrated fixation and bone-anchored limb prostheses provided by government organization

Abstract

The data in this paper are related to the research article entitled “Development of a government continuous quality improvement procedure for assessing the provision of bone anchored limb prosthesis: A process re-design descriptive study” (Frossard et al., Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal, 2018. 1(2). p. 1–14). This article contains quality of life data experienced by individuals before and after implantation of a press-fit or screw-type osseointegrated fixation when fitted with conventional socket-suspended and bone-anchored limb prosthesis, respectively. This specifically-designed survey was developed and administered by Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS), an Australian State government organization. It was an integrated part of QALS′ continuous quality improvement procedure for assessing the provision of bone-anchored prosthesis. A total of 12 out of the 65 consumers completed to the survey, giving a return rate of 18%. This benchmark information can contribute to inform the design of (A) other patients' experience surveys including those built-in governmental continuous quality improvement procedure as well as (B) clinical trials looking at the overall effects of surgical implantation of ossoeintegrated fixation on patients' quality of life. Online repository contains the files: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/bkbxxmrhfh/1.

Health Service Delivery and Economic Evaluation of Limb Lower Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Summary of the Queensland Artificial Limb Service’s Experience

“…17 The survey presented by indicated that 25% of QALS consumers found information about the surgical procedure from a prosthetist. 20 As expected, prosthetists should be responsible for usual fitting tasks (e.g., selection of components, alignment of prosthesis, prevention of falls). However, as reported in Clark (2021), prosthetists also play a key role in the prevention of load-related adverse events when fitting bone-anchored bionics prostheses.…”

Cost-Effectiveness of Transtibial Bone-Anchored Prostheses Using Osseointegrated Fixation: From Challenges to Preliminary Data

“…All registered consumers with unilateral TTA solely funded by QALS, who underwent treatment for BAP between June 2013 and Sept 2016, were included in this study. [25,47] Ethical guidelines from the Health Innovation, Investment and Research Office (HIIRO) of Queensland Health were followed.…”

“…[8,[15][16][17][18][19] Developments of transtibial bone-anchored prostheses Promising outcomes for TFAs have encouraged developments of direct skeletal attachment to treat individuals with transtibial amputation (TTA). [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] For instance, total knee replacement and insertion of press-fit osseointegrated implant were combined to enable the fitting of BAP for TTAs with short residuum. [22] To date, developments of fixations, surgical procedures, rehabilitation programs and prosthetic fitting guidelines are still in early experimental and clinical stages.…”

“…Indeed, the State of Queensland, Australia, known for its hot and humid weather making SSP difficult to tolerate, has witnessed a noticeable influx of TTAs opting for this treatment. [25] Health economic evaluations This momentum is driving state government organizations like the Queensland Artificial Limb Service (QALS) to adjust their procedures to provide equitable financial assistance for TTAs choosing direct skeletal attachment. At the same time, decision makers in these organizations must develop reimbursement standards while being held accountable for a wise allocation of limited financial resources due to healthcare economic constraints.…”

A Preliminary Cost-Utility Analysis of the Prosthetic Care Innovations: Case of the Keep Walking Implant

“…Developers of new prosthetic care solutions must demonstrate the safety, efficacy, and socio-economic benefits of their innovations. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Value for money of a prosthetic care innovation is usually evidenced during a health technology assessment (HTA) and a health It was anticipated that this new approach to preliminary CUA could simplify the selection of methods, standardize outcomes, ease comparisons between innovations, and streamline pathways for adoption. However, a practical application for an emerging intervention is required to illustrate and further advance the validation of the proposed basic framework.…”