Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses

References

• Johansen H, Ostlie K, Andersen LO, et al. Health-related quality of life in adults with congenital unilateral upper limb deficiency in Norway. A cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(23):2305–2314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østlie K, Magnus P, Skjeldal OH, et al. Mental health and satisfaction with life among upper limb amputees: a Norwegian population-based survey comparing adult acquired major upper limb amputees with a control group. Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(17–18):1594–1607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto M, Chung KC, Sterbenz J, et al. Cross-sectional international multicenter study on quality of life and reasons for abandonment of upper limb prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(5):e2205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Clark M. Function and quality of life of unilateral major upper limb amputees: effect of prosthesis use and type. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(8):1396–1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema SG, Bongers RM, Brouwers MA, et al. Upper limb absence: predictors of work participation and work productivity. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(6):892–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland/GIPdatabank. GIP databank; [cited 2021 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.gipdatabank.nl/.
   Google Scholar
• Atzori M, Müller H. Control capabilities of myoelectric robotic prostheses by hand amputees: a scientific research and market overview. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015;9:162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belter JT, Segil JL, Dollar AM, et al. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(5):599–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blough DK, Hubbard S, McFarland L V, et al. Prosthetic cost projections for service members with major limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):387–402.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Healy A, Farmer S, Eddison N, et al. A scoping literature review of studies assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;15(1):60–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke L, Dillon MP, Shiell A. A systematic review of health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics: part 1 – prosthetics. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(1):62–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelley CA, Shirley C, von Kaeppler EP, et al. Cost analyses of prosthetic devices: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(7):1404–1415.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler LH, et al. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees – have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44(14):3708–3713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Østlie K, Lesjø IM, Franklin RJ, et al. Prosthesis rejection in acquired major upper-limb amputees: a population-based survey. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2012;7(4):294–303.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007;31(3):236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luchetti M, Cutti AG, Verni G, et al. Impact of Michelangelo prosthetic hand: findings from a crossover longitudinal study. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(5):605–618.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Niet O, Reinders-Messelink HA, Bongers RM, et al. The i-LIMB hand and the DMC plus hand compared: a case report. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2010;34(2):216–220.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Cancio J, et al. Dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb veteran prosthesis users: a normative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2020;44(11):2470–2481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widehammar C, Hiyoshi A, Lidström Holmqvist K, et al. Effect of multi-grip myoelectric prosthetic hands on daily activities, pain-related disability and prosthesis use compared with single-grip myoelectric prostheses: a single-case study. J Rehabil Med. 2022;54:jrm00245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidzorg. 2016; [cited 2021 Dec 13]. Available from: www.zorginstituutnederland.nl.
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al.; CHEERS Task Force. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (cheers) statement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(2):117–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerver N, Sluis C V D, Twillert S V, et al. Towards assessing the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses : most important items regarding prosthesis use in people with major unilateral upper limb absence – a Dutch national survey. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(24):7554–7565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh M, Vermeulen KM, Evers SMAA, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grobet C, Marks M, Tecklenburg L, et al. Application and measurement properties of EQ-5D to measure quality of life in patients with upper extremity orthopaedic disorders: a systematic literature review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018;138(7):953–961.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e79494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM. The measurement of health and health status: concepts, methods and applications from a multidisciplinary perspective. San Diego: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, van den Heuvel ER, Krabbe PFM. A preference-based item response theory model to measure health: concept and mathematics of the multi-attribute preference response model. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shahabeddin Parizi A, Vermeulen KM, Gomes-Neto AW, et al. Using a novel concept to measure outcomes in solid organ recipients provided promising results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;139:96–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, Jabrayilov R, Detzel P, et al. A two-step procedure to generate utilities for the infant health-related quality of life instrument (IQI). PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0230852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• iMTA Productivity and Health Research Group. Handleiding iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). Rotterdam. 2018. [cited 2020 Mar 02]. Available from: www.imta.nl.
   Google Scholar
• iMTA Productivity and Health Research Group. Handleiding iMTA Medical Cost Questionnaire (iMCQ). Rotterdam. 2018. [cited 2022 Mar 02]. Available from: www.imta.nl.
   Google Scholar
• Bouwmans C, Krol M, Severens H, et al. The iMTA productivity cost questionnaire: a standardized instrument for measuring and valuing health-related productivity losses. Value Health. 2015;18(6):753–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Central Bureau of Statistics. Price index rates; [cited 2021 Apr 16]. Available from: http://www.cbs.nl/Statline.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkaart-van Roijen L, van der Linden N, Bouwmans C, et al. Kostenhandleiding: methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Zorginstituut Nederland: Diemen (The Netherlands); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al.; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) –a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oakley JE, Brennan A, Tappenden P, et al. Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations. J Health Econ. 2010;29(3):468–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vijgen S, Heesch F v, Obradovic M. Ziektelast in de praktijk – de theorie en praktijk van het berekenen van ziektelast bij pakketbeoordelingen. Zorginstituut Nederland [Internet]. 2018; [cited 2021 Dec 20]. Available from: www.zorginstituutnederland.nl.
   Google Scholar
• Šosterič K, Burger H, Vidmar G. Adjustment and satisfaction with prosthesis among people after upper limb amputation in Slovenia. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2020;22(2):85–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Resnik L, Borgia M, Heinemann AW, et al. Prosthesis satisfaction in a national sample of veterans with upper limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;44(2):81–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2007;2(6):346–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smail LC, Neal C, Wilkins C, et al. Comfort and function remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings of a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2020;19:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Widehammar C, Lidström Holmqvist K, Hermansson L. Training for users of myoelectric multigrip hand prostheses: a scoping review. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021;45(5):393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heerschop A, van der Sluis CK, Otten E, et al. Looking beyond proportional control: the relevance of mode switching in learning to operate multi-articulating myoelectric upper-limb prostheses. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2020;55:101647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzke AW, Kristoffersen MB, Bongers RM, et al. Users’ and therapists’ perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerver N, van Twillert S, Maas B, et al. User-relevant factors determining prosthesis choice in persons with major unilateral upper limb defects: a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature and focus group results. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallagher P, MacLachlan M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES). Rehabil Psychol. 2000;45(2):130–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O’Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the orthotics and prosthetics user’s survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):191–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burger H, Franchignoni F, Heinemann AW, et al. Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(5):393–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar