↓ Skip to main content

Estimating the Societal Benefits of THA After Accounting for Work Status and Productivity: A Markov Model Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Estimating the Societal Benefits of THA After Accounting for Work Status and Productivity: A Markov Model Approach
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5084-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lane Koenig, Qian Zhang, Matthew S. Austin, Berna Demiralp, Thomas K. Fehring, Chaoling Feng, Richard C. Mather, Jennifer T. Nguyen, Asha Saavoss, Bryan D. Springer, Adolph J. Yates

Abstract

Demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is high and expected to continue to grow during the next decade. Although much of this growth includes working-aged patients, cost-effectiveness studies on THA have not fully incorporated the productivity effects from surgery. We asked: (1) What is the expected effect of THA on patients' employment and earnings? (2) How does accounting for these effects influence the cost-effectiveness of THA relative to nonsurgical treatment? Taking a societal perspective, we used a Markov model to assess the overall cost-effectiveness of THA compared with nonsurgical treatment. We estimated direct medical costs using Medicare claims data and indirect costs (employment status and worker earnings) using regression models and nonparametric simulations. For direct costs, we estimated average spending 1 year before and after surgery. Spending estimates included physician and related services, hospital inpatient and outpatient care, and postacute care. For indirect costs, we estimated the relationship between functional status and productivity, using data from the National Health Interview Survey and regression analysis. Using regression coefficients and patient survey data, we ran a nonparametric simulation to estimate productivity (probability of working multiplied by earnings if working minus the value of missed work days) before and after THA. We used the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry to obtain revision rates because it contained osteoarthritis-specific THA revision rates by age and gender, which were unavailable in other registry reports. Other model assumptions were extracted from a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis that included a comprehensive literature review. We incorporated all parameter estimates into Markov models to assess THA effects on quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs. We conducted threshold and sensitivity analyses on direct costs, indirect costs, and revision rates to assess the robustness of our Markov model results. Compared with nonsurgical treatments, THA increased average annual productivity of patients by USD 9503 (95% CI, USD 1446-USD 17,812). We found that THA increases average lifetime direct costs by USD 30,365, which were offset by USD 63,314 in lifetime savings from increased productivity. With net societal savings of USD 32,948 per patient, total lifetime societal savings were estimated at almost USD 10 billion from more than 300,000 THAs performed in the United States each year. Using a Markov model approach, we show that THA produces societal benefits that can offset the costs of THA. When comparing THA with other nonsurgical treatments, policymakers should consider the long-term benefits associated with increased productivity from surgery. Level III, economic and decision analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 12 11%
Other 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 34 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Engineering 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,536,161
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#388
of 7,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,118
of 333,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#13
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.