Cited by 19Spinal Cord Injury ResearchDisability Education and EmploymentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness of supported employment for veterans with spinal cord injuries

Sinnott, Patricia L., Joyce, Vilija, Su, Pon, Ottomanelli, Lisa, Goetz, Lance L., Wagner, Todd H.·2014·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a supported employment (SE) intervention that had been previously found effective in veterans with spinal cord injuries (SCIs).Design Cost-effectiveness analysis, using cost and quality-of-life data gathered in a trial of SE for veterans with SCI.Setting SCI centers in the Veterans Health Administration.Participants Subjects (N=157) who completed a study of SE in 6 SCI centers. Subjects were randomly assigned to the intervention of SE (n=81) or treatment as usual (n=76).Intervention A vocational rehabilitation program of SE for veterans with SCI.Main outcome measures Costs and quality-adjusted life years, which were estimated from the Veterans Rand 36-Item Health Survey, extrapolated to Veterans Rand 6 Dimension utilities.Results Average cost for the SE intervention was $1821. In 1 year of follow-up, estimated total costs, including health care utilization and travel expenses, and average quality-adjusted life years were not significantly different between groups, suggesting the Spinal Cord Injury Vocational Integration Program intervention was not cost-effective compared with usual care.Conclusions An intensive program of SE for veterans with SCI, which is more effective in achieving competitive employment, is not cost-effective after 1 year of follow-up. Longer follow-up and a larger study sample will be necessary to determine whether SE yields benefits and is cost-effective in the long run for a population with SCI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.01.010

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 31 · Cited by 19

Authors
Sinnott, P. L., Joyce, V., Su, P., Ottomanelli, L., Goetz, L. L., & Wagner, T. H.
Affiliations
  • VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
  • James A. Haley Veterans' Hospital (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Sinnott, Patricia L.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
95
Issue
7
Pages
1254-1261
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993154294
Cited by
19
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
supported employment, spinal cord injury, veterans, cost-effectiveness, vocational rehabilitation, quality-adjusted life years, competitive employment, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Services, Hospitals, Special, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Spinal Cord Injuries, Travel, United States, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans, Employment, Supported, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review