A PRELIMINARY COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF THE PROSTHETIC CARE INNOVATIONS: CASE OF THE KEEP WALKING IMPLANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several obstacles must be overcome before preliminary cost-utility analyses (CUA) of prosthetic care innovations can be routinely performed. The basic framework of preliminary CUAs and hands-on recommendations suggested previously might contribute to wider adoption. However, a practical application for an emerging intervention is needed to showcase the capacity of this proposed preliminary CUA framework. This study presented the outcomes of preliminary CUA of the distal weight bearing Keep Walking Implant (KWI), an emerging prosthetic care innovation that may reduce socket fittings for individuals with transfemoral amputation. The preliminary CUAs compared the provision of prosthetic care without (usual intervention) and with the KWI (new intervention) using a 15-step iterative process focused on feasibility, constructs, analysis, and interpretations of outcomes from an Australia government prosthetic care perspective over a six-year time horizon. Baseline and incremental costs were extracted from schedules of allowable expenses. Baseline utilities were extracted from a study and converted into quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Incremental utilities were calculated based on sensible gains of QALY from baselines. The provision of the prosthetic care with the KWI could generate an indicative incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of -$36,890 per QALY, which was $76,890 per QALY below willingness-to-pay threshold, provided that the KWI reduces costs by $17,910 while increasing utility by 0.485 QALY compared to usual interventions. This preliminary CUA provided administrators of healthcare organizations in Australia and elsewhere with prerequisite evidence justifying further access to market and clinical introduction of the KWI. Altogether, this work suggests that the basic framework of the preliminary CUA of a prosthetic care innovation proposed previously is feasible and informative when a series of assumptions are carefully considered. This study further confirms that preliminary CUAs prosthetic care interventions might be a relevant alternative to full CUA for other medical treatments. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/36366/28329 How To Cite: Guirao L, Samitier B, Frossard L. A preliminary cost-utility analysis of the prosthetic care innovations: case of the keep walking implant. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2021; Volume 4, Issue 2, No.11. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.36366 Corresponding Author: Laurent Frossard (PhD), Professor of BionicsYourResearchProject Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia.E-Mail: laurentfrossard@outlook.comORCID number: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0248-9589
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".