Economic evaluation of stuttering treatment in preschool children: The RESTART-study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the Lidcombe Program (LP) compared with treatment based on the Demands and Capacities Model (RESTART-DCM) for preschool children who stutter. METHOD: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were carried out alongside a Randomized Clinical Trial (the RESTART-study). In total, 199 children in 20 speech clinics participated. Outcome measures included the number needed to treat, based on the percentage of children who did not stutter at 18 months, and Health-related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS and HUI3) at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Health-related Quality of Life scores were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (V-QALYs for the EQ-VAS and U-QALYs for the HUI3). Direct and indirect costs were measured by cost questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed. Percentages of children who did not stutter in both groups were compared by a chi-square test. Between-group differences in mean QALYs and costs, as well as cost effectiveness and cost-utility ratios, were evaluated by applying bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: After 18 months, health outcomes were slightly better in the LP group, although only the difference in V-QALYs was statistical significant (0.018; 95% CI: 0.008 to 0.027) with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.17). Mean costs for the LP group were significantly higher compared to the RESTART-DCM group (€3199 versus €3032), again with a small effect size (Cohen's d=0.14). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €3360 for one additional child who did not stutter with the LP, and the estimated cost-utility ratios were €10,413 (extra cost per extra V-QALY) and €18,617 (extra cost per extra U-QALY). The results indicated a high probability that the LP is cost-effective compared to RESTART-DCM treatment given a threshold for willingness-to-pay of €20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in effects and costs between the LP and RESTART-DCM treatment were small. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were in favor of the LP. The LP is considered a good alternative to RESTART-DCM treatment in Dutch primary care.

A welfare economic approach to measure outcomes in stuttering: comparing willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two welfare outcome measures, willingness to pay (WTP) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, to measure outcomes in stuttering. METHOD: Seventy-eight adult participants (74 nonstuttering and 4 persons with stuttering) completed one face-to-face structured interview regarding how much they would be willing to pay to alleviate severe stuttering in three interventions of varying impact. These data were compared with QALYs gained as calculated from time trade off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) data. RESULTS: Mean (median) WTP bids ranged from US $16,875 (8000), for an intervention resulting in improvement from severe stuttering to mild stuttering, to US $41,844 (10,000) for an intervention resulting in a cure of severe stuttering. These data were consistent with mean changes in QALYs for the same stuttering interventions ranging from 2.19 (using SG) to 18.42 (using TTO). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the first published WTP and QALY data for stuttering. Results were consistent with previous cost-of-illness data for stuttering. Both WTP and QALY measures were able to quantify the reduction in quality of life that occurs in stuttering, and both can be used to compare the gains that might be achieved by different interventions. It is widely believed that stuttering can cause reduced quality of life for some speakers; the introduction into this field of standardized metrics for measuring quality of life is a necessary step for transparently weighing the costs and consequences of stuttering interventions in economic analyses. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: The reader will be able to (a) describe the underlying theoretical foundations for willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years, (b) describe the application of willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years for use in economic analyses, (c) compare and contrast the value of willingness to pay and quality adjusted life years in measuring the impact of stuttering treatment on quality of life, (d) interpret quality adjusted life years, and (e) interpret willingness to pay data.

An investigation into the personal financial costs associated with stuttering.

UNLABELLED: Stuttering has been found to deteriorate quality of life in psychological, emotional and social functioning domains. It is reasonable to assume then that stuttering would also be associated with economic consequences that may also challenge quality of life. Remarkably, the personal financial costs associated with stuttering in adults has rarely if ever been explored or investigated in the fluency disorders field. This study involved an assessment of the personal costs of stuttering and an investigation into determinants that may influence spending. Two hundred adults who stutter participated in this study. Findings indicated that the average total cost was around $5,500 (median cost $4,165) in 2007/08 Australian dollars over a 5-year period. Major financial items included costs of direct and indirect treatments for stuttering, self-help, stuttering related conferences, and technology. Financial costs were not significantly influenced by the sex of the person, annual income, or by how severe the person stuttered. However, those individuals younger than 60 years old spent significantly more on treatment related costs, while those with elevated levels of social anxiety spent significantly less than those with lower levels of social anxiety. Quality of life implications associated with stuttering are discussed. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: The reader will be able to: (a) describe the method for assessing the direct financial costs of stuttering over a 5-year period; (b) describe the financial personal cost of stuttering for adults who stutter; (c) describe the relationship between factors like sex, age, severity of stuttering and financial costs; and (d) describe the relationship between social anxiety and the financial cost of stuttering.