Cargando…
Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models
Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9633777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36329128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22488-3 |
_version_ | 1784824314655145984 |
---|---|
author | McPhail, Steven M. Wiseman, Jodie Simons, Megan Kimble, Roy Tyack, Zephanie |
author_facet | McPhail, Steven M. Wiseman, Jodie Simons, Megan Kimble, Roy Tyack, Zephanie |
author_sort | McPhail, Steven M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95% CI $337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46, $1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9633777 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96337772022-11-05 Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models McPhail, Steven M. Wiseman, Jodie Simons, Megan Kimble, Roy Tyack, Zephanie Sci Rep Article Optimal burn scar management has the potential to markedly improve the lives of children, but can require substantial healthcare resources. The study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of three scar management interventions: pressure garment; topical silicone gel; combined pressure garment and topical silicone gel therapy, alongside a randomised controlled trial of these interventions. Participants were children (n = 153) referred for burn scar management following grafting, spontaneous healing after acute burn injury, or reconstructive surgery. Healthcare resource use was costed from a health service perspective (6-months post-burn time-horizon). The mean total scar management cost was lowest in the topical silicone gel group ($382.87 (95% CI $337.72, $443.29)) compared to the pressure garment ($1327.02 (95% CI $1081.46, $1659.95)) and combined intervention $1605.97 ($1077.65, $2694.23)) groups. There were no significant between-group differences in Quality Adjusted Life Year estimates. There was a 70% probability that topical silicone gel dominated pressure garment therapy (was cheaper and more effective), a 29% probability that pressure garment therapy dominated combined therapy, and a 63% probability that topical silicone gel dominated combined therapy. In conclusion, topical silicone gel was the cheaper intervention, and may be favoured in the absence of clear clinical effect favouring pressure garment therapy or a combination of these management approaches. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001100482 (prospectively registered). Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-11-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9633777/ /pubmed/36329128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22488-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article McPhail, Steven M. Wiseman, Jodie Simons, Megan Kimble, Roy Tyack, Zephanie Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title | Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title_full | Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title_fullStr | Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title_full_unstemmed | Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title_short | Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
title_sort | cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9633777/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36329128 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22488-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcphailstevenm costeffectivenessofscarmanagementpostburnatrialbasedeconomicevaluationofthreeinterventionmodels AT wisemanjodie costeffectivenessofscarmanagementpostburnatrialbasedeconomicevaluationofthreeinterventionmodels AT simonsmegan costeffectivenessofscarmanagementpostburnatrialbasedeconomicevaluationofthreeinterventionmodels AT kimbleroy costeffectivenessofscarmanagementpostburnatrialbasedeconomicevaluationofthreeinterventionmodels AT tyackzephanie costeffectivenessofscarmanagementpostburnatrialbasedeconomicevaluationofthreeinterventionmodels |