Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T15:36:08.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-Utility Analysis of Assistive Technologies in the European Commission's Tide Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Håkan Brodin  and
Jan Persson
Håkan Brodin
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
Jan Persson
Affiliation:
Linkooping University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

Socioeconomic evaluation is an issue dealt with in the European Commission's research program TIDE. The principles of cost-utility analysis have been examined for usability in the assessment of rehabilitative technologies. A case study, the choice of a type of wheelchair, is described to demonstrate how estimates of utility can be derived and how cost-utility ratios can be used to guide decision making.

Type
Special Section: Technology and Disability
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 276 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Drummond, M. F., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
2.(The) EuroQol Group. EuroQol — A new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy, 1990, 16, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Hass, U., Persson, J., Brodin, H., et al. Assessment of rehabilitation technologies in stroke: Outcomes and costs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 245–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Kaplan, R. M., & Anderson, J. P.A general health model: Update and applications. Health Services Research, 1988, 23, 203–35.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Lindqvist, K.Towards community-based injury prevention: The Motala model. Linkoping: Department of Community Medicine, Linköping University Medical Dissertations, 1993, No. 404.Google Scholar
6.Nord, E., Richardson, J., & Macarounas-Kirchmann, K.Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 463–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Persson, J., & Brodin, H.Legal and macroeconomic factors impacting rehabilitation technology availability: Existing socio-economic models. ECTIDE study Horizontal European Activities in Rehabilitation Technology. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General DG XIII, 08 1993.Google Scholar
8.Rosser, R., Cottee, M., Rabin, R., & Selai, C. Index of health-related quality of life. In Hopkins, A. (ed.)., Measures of the quality of life and the uses to which such measures may be put. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1992, 81–90.Google Scholar
9.Rosser, R., & Kind, P. A. scale of valuations of states of illness: Is there a social consensus? International Journal of Epidemiology, 1978, 347–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.TIDE (Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly People): TIDE 1993–1994 Work-plan. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate — General XIII, 02 14, 1992, updated 03 1, 1993.Google Scholar