Economic Evaluation Comparing Virtual Reality with Child Life Programming for Non-sedated Pediatric Medical Imaging: A Cost-Consequence Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Effective preparation of children for hospital procedures, including non-sedated medical imaging, is an important clinical issue. This study aimed to assess the costs and consequences (effects) of preparing pediatric patients using two methods of delivering preparation for a scheduled magnetic resonance image (MRI)-virtual reality (VR-MRI) and a certified Child Life Program (CLP). METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was performed using a societal perspective in Canada. The CCA catalogs a wide range of costs and consequences of VR-MRI compared with a CLP. The evaluation uses data from a prior randomized clinical trial evaluating VR and a CLP in a simulated trial. The economic evaluation encompassed health-related effects, including anxiety, safety and adverse events, and non-health effects, including preparation time, displaced time from usual activities, workload capacity, patient-specific adaptation, administrative burden, and user-experience metrics. The costs have been categorized into hospital operational costs, travel costs, other patient costs, and societal costs. RESULTS: VR-MRI has similar benefits to the CLP in managing anxiety, safety and adverse events, as well as converting patients to non-sedated medical imaging. Preparation time and patient-specific adaptation are in favor of the CLP, while displaced time from usual activities, potential workload capacity, and administrative burden are in favor of VR-MRI. Both programs rank favorably in terms of user experience. The hospital operational costs ranged in Canadian dollars (CAN$) from CAN$32.07 for the CLP to between CAN$107.37 and CAN$129.73 for VR-MRI. Travel costs ranged from CAN$50.58 to CAN$2365.18 depending on travel distance for the CLP, and CAN$0 for VR-MRI. Other patient costs involved caregiver time off, and ranged from CAN$190.69 to CAN$$1144.16 for the CLP and CAN$47.67 for VR-MRI. The total cost for the CLP ranged from CAN$315.16 (CAN$277.91-$426.64) to CAN$3843.41 (CAN$3196.59-$4849.91) per patient depending on travel distance and amount of administrative support required, while VR-MRI preparation ranged from CAN$178.30 (CAN$178.20-$188.76) to CAN$283.85 (CAN$283.71-$298.40) per patient. For every instance where patient travel to visit a Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS) onsite was replaced with VR-MRI, between CAN$119.01 and CAN$3364.62 total costs could be saved per patient. CONCLUSIONS: While it is neither feasible nor appropriate to replace all preparation with VR, using VR to reach children who cannot otherwise visit the CLP onsite could increase access to quality preparation, and using VR in place of the CLP where clinically indicated could reduce the overall costs for patients, the hospital, and society. Our CCA gives decision makers a cost analysis and the relevant effects of each preparation program so they can value the VR and CLP programs more broadly within the potential health and non-health outcomes of pediatric patients scheduled for MRI at their facilities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".