Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29665791›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2018

A cost-effectiveness study of ICT training among the visually impaired in the Netherlands.

Nathalie J S Patty, Marc Koopmanschap, Kim Holtzer-Goor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Telerehabilitation for people with low vision.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. ICECAP-O, the current state of play: a systematic review of studies reporting the psychometric properties and use of the instrument over the decade since its publication.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Capability instruments in economic evaluations of health-related interventions: a comparative review of the literature.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nathalie J S PattyErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. patty@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6226-9756
Marc KoopmanschapErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Kim Holtzer-GoorErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000, DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

Bartiméus and Konlijke Visio n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to the ageing population, the number of visually impaired people in the Netherlands will increase. To ensure the future availability of services in rehabilitative eye care, we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) training among visually impaired adults from a societal perspective, using primary data from two large rehabilitative eye care providers in the Netherlands.

methodsParticipants were asked to fill in a questionnaire, which used six different instruments at three different time points: pre training, post training and three months post training. We investigated whether the participants' quality of life and well-being improved after the training and whether this improvement persisted three months post training. Economic evaluation was conducted by comparing costs and outcomes before and after training. Quality of life and well-being were derived from the EQ-5D and ICECAP-O, respectively. Costs for productivity losses and medical consumption were obtained from the questionnaires. Information regarding the costs of training sessions was provided by the providers.

resultsThirty-eight participants filled in all three questionnaires. The mean age at baseline was 63 years (SD = 16). The effect of ICT training on ICT skills and participants' well-being was positive and persisted three months after the last training session. Assuming these effects remain constant for 10 years, this would result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of € 11,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and € 8000 per year of well-being gained, when only the costs of ICT training are considered. When the total costs of medical consumption are included, the ICER increases to € 17,000 per QALY gained and € 12,000 per year of well-being gained. Furthermore, when the willingness-to-pay threshold is € 20,000 per year of well-being, the probability that ICT training will be cost-effective is 75% (91% when including only the costs of ICT training).

conclusionOur study suggests that ICT training among the visually impaired is cost-effective when the effects of ICT training on well-being persist for several years. However, further research involving a larger sample and incorporating long-term effects should be conducted.

Indexed as

Computer User TrainingQuality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPersons with Visual DisabilitiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-effectivenessEye careICECAP-OICT trainingRehabilitationVisually impaired

Identifiers

PMID29665791
PMCPMC5905144
OpenAlexW2804833901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.