Cost-effectiveness of supported employment for veterans with spinal cord injuries
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A fairly recent study found that SE for veterans with spinal cord injuries was not significantly more cost-effective than treatment as usual.
“A fairly recent study looked at the cost-benefit of SE for veterans with spinal cord injuries and found that it was not significantly more cost-effective than TAU [69].”
From Supported employment: Meta-analysis and review of randomized controlled trials of individual placement and support (2019) · cites this paper as [69]
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