Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education

Elena Gospodarevskaya, Rob Carter, Christine Imms, Eli Mang Yee Chu, Kelli Nicola-Richmond, Nigel Gribble, Elspeth Froude, Stephen Guinea, Loretta Sheppard, Angelo Iezzi, Gang Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction: This economic evaluation complements results of the randomised controlled trial that established non-inferiority of the learning outcomes of a one-week simulated clinical placement (SCP) in occupational therapy qualifying degrees in comparison to an equivalent traditional clinical placement (TCP). This companion study presents detailed cost analyses of two placement alternatives and a cost-benefit study to assess the value for money of SCP. An economic evaluation of simulated versus traditional placements has not previously been conducted in Australia. Methods: Nine SCP/TCP rounds were conducted by six Australian universities. Costs were collected using study-specific instruments. Public health sector costs were sourced from available literature. Willingness-to-pay for SCP/TCP was estimated using both a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Contingent Valuation method. These methods were employed to assess a comparative ‘value’ of SCP/TCP from the perspective of heads of occupational therapy departments (N = 28), who were asked to put a monetary value on the broader range of benefits associated with SCP/TCP. Results: From the universities’ perspective the average cost per student ranged from AUD$460 to AUD$1511 for simulated and AUD$144 to AUD$1112 for traditional placement. From the health care sector perspective, the difference in costs favoured simulated placements for four implementations and traditional placements for five. In the Discrete Choice Experiment respondents preferred traditional rather than simulated placement and would pay additional AUD$533. The estimated monetary value of simulated placements from a contingent valuation ranged from AUD$200 to AUD$1600. Conclusions: For universities that procure TCPs predominately at public health care facilities and sustain high administrative overheads, the SCP program could be a cost-saving alternative. From a broader value-for-money perspective, respondents favoured TCP over SCP, yet placed importance on placement availability and opportunity to demonstrate competence for students during the placement. Results should be interpreted with caution and further research with larger sample sizes is required.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)369-379
Number of pages11
JournalAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal
Volume66
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2019

Keywords

  • cost analysis
  • economic evaluation
  • occupational therapy
  • randomized controlled trial
  • simulation training

Cite this

Gospodarevskaya, Elena ; Carter, Rob ; Imms, Christine ; Chu, Eli Mang Yee ; Nicola-Richmond, Kelli ; Gribble, Nigel ; Froude, Elspeth ; Guinea, Stephen ; Sheppard, Loretta ; Iezzi, Angelo ; Chen, Gang. / Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education. In: Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2019 ; Vol. 66, No. 3. pp. 369-379.
@article{859e506b93d746d884d08f709b5a0496,
title = "Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education",
abstract = "Introduction: This economic evaluation complements results of the randomised controlled trial that established non-inferiority of the learning outcomes of a one-week simulated clinical placement (SCP) in occupational therapy qualifying degrees in comparison to an equivalent traditional clinical placement (TCP). This companion study presents detailed cost analyses of two placement alternatives and a cost-benefit study to assess the value for money of SCP. An economic evaluation of simulated versus traditional placements has not previously been conducted in Australia. Methods: Nine SCP/TCP rounds were conducted by six Australian universities. Costs were collected using study-specific instruments. Public health sector costs were sourced from available literature. Willingness-to-pay for SCP/TCP was estimated using both a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Contingent Valuation method. These methods were employed to assess a comparative ‘value’ of SCP/TCP from the perspective of heads of occupational therapy departments (N = 28), who were asked to put a monetary value on the broader range of benefits associated with SCP/TCP. Results: From the universities’ perspective the average cost per student ranged from AUD$460 to AUD$1511 for simulated and AUD$144 to AUD$1112 for traditional placement. From the health care sector perspective, the difference in costs favoured simulated placements for four implementations and traditional placements for five. In the Discrete Choice Experiment respondents preferred traditional rather than simulated placement and would pay additional AUD$533. The estimated monetary value of simulated placements from a contingent valuation ranged from AUD$200 to AUD$1600. Conclusions: For universities that procure TCPs predominately at public health care facilities and sustain high administrative overheads, the SCP program could be a cost-saving alternative. From a broader value-for-money perspective, respondents favoured TCP over SCP, yet placed importance on placement availability and opportunity to demonstrate competence for students during the placement. Results should be interpreted with caution and further research with larger sample sizes is required.",
keywords = "cost analysis, economic evaluation, occupational therapy, randomized controlled trial, simulation training",
author = "Elena Gospodarevskaya and Rob Carter and Christine Imms and Chu, {Eli Mang Yee} and Kelli Nicola-Richmond and Nigel Gribble and Elspeth Froude and Stephen Guinea and Loretta Sheppard and Angelo Iezzi and Gang Chen",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1440-1630.12563",
language = "English",
volume = "66",
pages = "369--379",
journal = "Australian Occupational Therapy Journal",
issn = "0045-0766",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Gospodarevskaya, E, Carter, R, Imms, C, Chu, EMY, Nicola-Richmond, K, Gribble, N, Froude, E, Guinea, S, Sheppard, L, Iezzi, A & Chen, G 2019, 'Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education', Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12563

Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education. / Gospodarevskaya, Elena; Carter, Rob; Imms, Christine; Chu, Eli Mang Yee; Nicola-Richmond, Kelli; Gribble, Nigel; Froude, Elspeth; Guinea, Stephen; Sheppard, Loretta; Iezzi, Angelo; Chen, Gang.

In: Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 66, No. 3, 01.06.2019, p. 369-379.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Economic evaluation of simulated and traditional clinical placements in occupational therapy education

AU - Gospodarevskaya, Elena

AU - Carter, Rob

AU - Imms, Christine

AU - Chu, Eli Mang Yee

AU - Nicola-Richmond, Kelli

AU - Gribble, Nigel

AU - Froude, Elspeth

AU - Guinea, Stephen

AU - Sheppard, Loretta

AU - Iezzi, Angelo

AU - Chen, Gang

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Introduction: This economic evaluation complements results of the randomised controlled trial that established non-inferiority of the learning outcomes of a one-week simulated clinical placement (SCP) in occupational therapy qualifying degrees in comparison to an equivalent traditional clinical placement (TCP). This companion study presents detailed cost analyses of two placement alternatives and a cost-benefit study to assess the value for money of SCP. An economic evaluation of simulated versus traditional placements has not previously been conducted in Australia. Methods: Nine SCP/TCP rounds were conducted by six Australian universities. Costs were collected using study-specific instruments. Public health sector costs were sourced from available literature. Willingness-to-pay for SCP/TCP was estimated using both a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Contingent Valuation method. These methods were employed to assess a comparative ‘value’ of SCP/TCP from the perspective of heads of occupational therapy departments (N = 28), who were asked to put a monetary value on the broader range of benefits associated with SCP/TCP. Results: From the universities’ perspective the average cost per student ranged from AUD$460 to AUD$1511 for simulated and AUD$144 to AUD$1112 for traditional placement. From the health care sector perspective, the difference in costs favoured simulated placements for four implementations and traditional placements for five. In the Discrete Choice Experiment respondents preferred traditional rather than simulated placement and would pay additional AUD$533. The estimated monetary value of simulated placements from a contingent valuation ranged from AUD$200 to AUD$1600. Conclusions: For universities that procure TCPs predominately at public health care facilities and sustain high administrative overheads, the SCP program could be a cost-saving alternative. From a broader value-for-money perspective, respondents favoured TCP over SCP, yet placed importance on placement availability and opportunity to demonstrate competence for students during the placement. Results should be interpreted with caution and further research with larger sample sizes is required.

AB - Introduction: This economic evaluation complements results of the randomised controlled trial that established non-inferiority of the learning outcomes of a one-week simulated clinical placement (SCP) in occupational therapy qualifying degrees in comparison to an equivalent traditional clinical placement (TCP). This companion study presents detailed cost analyses of two placement alternatives and a cost-benefit study to assess the value for money of SCP. An economic evaluation of simulated versus traditional placements has not previously been conducted in Australia. Methods: Nine SCP/TCP rounds were conducted by six Australian universities. Costs were collected using study-specific instruments. Public health sector costs were sourced from available literature. Willingness-to-pay for SCP/TCP was estimated using both a Discrete Choice Experiment and a Contingent Valuation method. These methods were employed to assess a comparative ‘value’ of SCP/TCP from the perspective of heads of occupational therapy departments (N = 28), who were asked to put a monetary value on the broader range of benefits associated with SCP/TCP. Results: From the universities’ perspective the average cost per student ranged from AUD$460 to AUD$1511 for simulated and AUD$144 to AUD$1112 for traditional placement. From the health care sector perspective, the difference in costs favoured simulated placements for four implementations and traditional placements for five. In the Discrete Choice Experiment respondents preferred traditional rather than simulated placement and would pay additional AUD$533. The estimated monetary value of simulated placements from a contingent valuation ranged from AUD$200 to AUD$1600. Conclusions: For universities that procure TCPs predominately at public health care facilities and sustain high administrative overheads, the SCP program could be a cost-saving alternative. From a broader value-for-money perspective, respondents favoured TCP over SCP, yet placed importance on placement availability and opportunity to demonstrate competence for students during the placement. Results should be interpreted with caution and further research with larger sample sizes is required.

KW - cost analysis

KW - economic evaluation

KW - occupational therapy

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - simulation training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060589180&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1440-1630.12563

DO - 10.1111/1440-1630.12563

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 369

EP - 379

JO - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

JF - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

SN - 0045-0766

IS - 3

ER -