Clinical Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Bespoke and Prefabricated Foot Orthoses for Plantar Heel Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Ring ◽  
Simon Otter
BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 344 (apr18 3) ◽  
pp. e2292-e2292 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Schroeder ◽  
S. Petrou ◽  
N. Patel ◽  
J. Hollowell ◽  
D. Puddicombe ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Rome ◽  
Joanne Gray ◽  
Fiona Stewart ◽  
Stephen Charles Hannant ◽  
Des Callaghan ◽  
...  

This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two different types of foot orthoses used to treat plantar heel pain. Forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive either a functional or an accommodative orthosis. General (EuroQol) and specific (Foot Health Status Questionnaire) health-status measures were used. Data were also collected using economic questionnaires relating to National Health Service costs for podia-try, other health-service costs, and patient costs. Data were measured at baseline and at 4- and 8-week intervals. Thirty-five patients completed the study. The results demonstrated a significant decrease in foot pain and a significant increase in foot function with the functional foot orthoses over the 8-week trial. The accommodative foot orthoses demonstrated a significant reduction in foot pain only at 4 weeks. The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that functional orthoses, although initially more expensive, result in a better quality of life. Use of functional orthoses resulted in an increased cost of £17.99 ($32.74) per patient, leading to an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year of £1,650 ($3,003) for functional orthoses. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 94(3): 229–238, 2004)


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e050452
Author(s):  
Sarah Jane Stock ◽  
Amarnath Bhide ◽  
Heather Richardson ◽  
Mairead Black ◽  
Cassandra Yuill ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital—prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS).Methods and analysisWe will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks’ gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost–utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained.Research ethics approval and disseminationCHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN32652461.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document