Economic evaluation of wheelchairs interventions: a systematic review

References

• World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva: WHO; 2011. Available from: https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE). 2012. Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/systems/sage/en/
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less-resourced settings. Switzerland. 2008. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/guidelines-on-the-provision-of-manual-wheelchairs-in-less-resourced-settings
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. 2006. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. New York (NY): United Nations; 2006. Available from: http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Salminen AL, Brandt A, Samuelsson K, et al. Mobility devices to promote activity and participation: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2009;41(9):697–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies A, De Souza LH, Frank AO. Changes in the quality of life in severely disabled people following provision of powered indoor/outdoor chairs. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(6):286–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson I, Ahlström G, Törnquist K. The value of an outdoor powered wheelchair with regard to the quality of life of persons with stroke: a follow-up study. Assist Technol. 2007;19(3):143–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hossain MS, Islam MS, Rahman MA, et al. Health status, quality of life and socioeconomic situation of people with spinal cord injuries six years after discharge from a hospital in Bangladesh. Spinal Cord. 2019;57(8):652–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rankin JW, Kwarciak AM, Richter WM, et al. The influence of wheelchair propulsion technique on upper extremity muscle demand: a simulation study. Clin Biomech. 2012;27(9):879–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogaboom NS, Worobey LA, Houlihan BV, et al. Wheelchair breakdowns are associated with pain, pressure injuries, rehospitalization, and Self-Perceived health in Full-Time wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(10):1949–1956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B, Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assist Technol. 1993;5(1):36–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Harris N, et al. Defining health-related quality of life for young wheelchair users: a qualitative health economics study. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Edwards RT, et al. Wheelchair interventions, services and provision for disabled children: a mixed-method systematic review and conceptual framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):645–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. Layerthorpe: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2009. Chapter 5 - Systematic reviews of economic evaluation. Available from: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
   Google Scholar
• van Mastrigt GA, Hiligsmann M, Arts JJ, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):689–704.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toro ML, Eke C, Pearlman J. The impact of the world health organization 8-steps in wheelchair service provision in wheelchair users in a less resourced setting: a cohort study in Indonesia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16:26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielen FW, Van Mastrigt G, Burgers LT, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for clinical practice guidelines: database selection and search strategy development (part 2/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):705–721.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijnen B, Van Mastrigt G, Redekop WK, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: data extraction, risk of bias, and transferability (part 3/3). Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2016;16(6):723–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs institute reviewers’ manual. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al.; ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines-CHEERS Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagberg L, Hermansson L, Fredriksson C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of powered mobility devices for elderly people with disability. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2017;12(2):115–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsson K, Wressle E. Powered wheelchairs and scooters for outdoor mobility: a pilot study on costs and benefits. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2014;9(4):330–334.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gebrosky B, Grindle G, Cooper R, et al. Comparison of carbon fibre and aluminium materials in the construction of ultralight wheelchairs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(4):432–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebrosky B, Bridge A, O’Donnell S, et al. Comparing the performance of ultralight folding manual wheelchairs using standardized tests. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;27:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Gebrosky B, Pearlman J, Cooper R. Comparison of High-Strength aluminum ultralight wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA testing standards. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2018;24(1):63–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gebrosky B, Pearlman J, Cooper RA, et al. Evaluation of lightweight wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA testing standards. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1373–1389.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang H, Liu HY, Pearlman J, et al. Relationship between wheelchair durability and wheelchair type and years of test. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(5):318–322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu HY, Cooper RA, Pearlman J, et al. Evaluation of titanium ultralight manual wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA standards. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(9):1251–1267.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cooper RA, Boninger ML, Rentschler A. Evaluation of selected ultralight manual wheelchairs using ANSI/RESNA standards. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80(4):462–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Gonzalez J, Lawrence B, et al. Performance of selected lightweight wheelchairs on ANSI/RESNA tests. American national standards Institute-Rehabilitation engineering and assistive technology society of North america. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78(10):1138–1144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper RA, Robertson RN, Lawrence B, et al. Life-cycle analysis of depot versus rehabilitation manual wheelchairs. J rehabil res dev. Pmid: 8868417. 1996 Feb;33(1):45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald SG, Cooper RA, Boninger ML, et al. Comparison of fatigue life for 3 types of manual wheelchairs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(10):1484–1488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearlman JL, Cooper RA, Karnawat J, et al. Evaluation of the safety and durability of low-cost nonprogrammable electric powered wheelchairs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(12):2361–2370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fass MV, Cooper RA, Fitzgerald SG, et al. Durability, value, and reliability of selected electric powered wheelchairs. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):805–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza AE, Pearlman JL, Cooper R, et al. Evaluation of scooters using ANSI/RESNA standards. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(7):1017–1034.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hubbard SL, Fitzgerald SG, Vogel B, et al. Distribution and cost of wheelchairs and scooters provided by veterans health administration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44(4):581–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutter MF, Rodríguez-Ibeas R, Antonanzas F. Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(8):829–840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggeri M, Manca A, Coretti S, et al. Investigating the generalizability of economic evaluations conducted in Italy: a critical review. Value Health. 2015;18(5):709–720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Noyes J, Harris N, et al. Measuring the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility: examining correlation and agreement between children and parent proxies. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):377.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Michel YA, Engel L, Rand-Hendriksen K, et al. "When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling": interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):164.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whitehurst DG, Suryaprakash N, Engel L, et al. Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: a qualitative exploration. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Bray N, Yeo ST, Noyes J, et al. Prioritising wheelchair services for children: a pilot discrete choice experiment to understand how child wheelchair users and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:32. s40814-016-0074-y PMID: 27965851.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schraner I, De Jonge D, Layton N, et al. Using the ICF in economic analyses of Assistive Technology systems: methodological implications of a user standpoint. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(12-13):916–926.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Mortenson W, Demers L, Fuhrer MJ, et al. Effects of a caregiver-inclusive assistive technology intervention: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):97
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Auger C. Issues for the selection of Wheelchair-Specific activity and participation outcome measures: a review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89(6):1177–1186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark SL, et al. Participation survey/mobility: psychometric properties of a measure of participation for people with mobility impairments and limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(2):189–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray DB, Hollingsworth HH, Stark S, et al. A subjective measure of environmental facilitators and barriers to participation for people with mobility limitations. Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(6):434–457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salatino C, Andrich R, Converti RM, et al. An observational study of powered wheelchair provision in Italy. Assist Technol. 2016;28(1):41–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, Ska B. The Quebec user evaluation of satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST 2.0): an overview and recent progress. TAD. 2002;14(3):101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mills T, Holm MB, Trefler E, et al. Development and consumer validation of the functional evaluation in a wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24(1-3):38–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley RK, Stafford DJ, Rasch E, et al. Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003;40(4):301–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil. 1996;9:159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson WB, Miller WC, Miller-Pogar J. Measuring wheelchair intervention outcomes: development of the wheelchair outcome measure. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(5):275–285.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cusick A, McIntyre S, Novak I, et al. A comparison of goal attainment scaling and the canadian occupational performance measure for paediatric rehabilitation research. Pediatr Rehabil. 2006;9(2):149–157.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacobs P, Hailey D, Jones A. Economic evaluation for assistive technology policy decisions. Journal of Disability Policy Studies. 2003;14(2):120–126.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Ferrario M, Moi M. A model of cost-outcome analysis for assistive technology. Disabil Rehabil. 1998;20(1):1–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich R, Caracciolo A. Analysing the cost of individual assistive technology programmes. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007; 2(4):207–234.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bray N, Spencer LH, Tuersley L, et al. Development of the MobQoL patient reported outcome measure for mobility-related quality of life. Disab Rehabil. 2020;1–10. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2020.1741701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bray N, Tudor Edwards R. Preference-based measurement of mobility-related quality of life: developing the MobQoL-7D health state classification system. Disab Rehabil. 2020;1–15. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2020.1844319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar