Wheelchairs for disabled children (≤18 years) can provide health, developmental and social benefits. World Health Organisation and United Kingdom Government reports demonstrate the need for improved access to wheelchairs both locally and internationally. The use of health economics within this field is lacking. Provision of wheelchairs based on cost-effectiveness evidence is not currently possible. We conducted the first systematic review in this field to incorporate evidence of effectiveness, service user perspectives, policy intentions and cost-effectiveness in order to develop a conceptual framework to inform future research and service development.

Background: One-fifth of all disabled children have mobility limitations. Early provision of powered mobility for very young children (aged < 5 years) is hypothesised to trigger positive developmental changes. However, the optimum age at which to introduce powered mobility is unknown. Objective: The aim of this project was to synthesise existing evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of powered mobility for very young children, compared with the more common practice of powered mobility provision from the age of 5 years. Review methods: The study was planned as a mixed-methods evidence synthesis and economic modelling study. First, evidence relating to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, feasibility and anticipated outcomes of paediatric powered mobility interventions was reviewed. A convergent mixed-methods evidence synthesis was undertaken using framework synthesis, and a separate qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken using thematic synthesis. The two syntheses were subsequently compared and contrasted to develop a logic model for evaluating the outcomes of powered mobility interventions for children. Because there were insufficient published data, it was not possible to develop a robust economic model. Instead, a budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the cost of increased powered mobility provision for very young children, using cost data from publicly available sources. Data sources: A range of bibliographic databases [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker), Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index (SCI; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), Social Sciences Citation Index™ (SSCI; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI-S; Clarivate Analytics), Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH; Clarivate Analytics), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and OpenGrey] was systematically searched and the included studies were quality appraised. Searches were carried out in June 2018 and updated in October 2019. The date ranges searched covered from 1946 to September 2019. Results: In total, 89 studies were included in the review. Only two randomised controlled trials were identified. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No conclusive evidence was found about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of powered mobility in children aged either < 5 or ≥ 5 years. However, strong support was found that powered mobility interventions have a positive impact on children’s movement and mobility, and moderate support was found for the impact on children’s participation, play and social interactions and on the safety outcome of accidents and pain. ‘Fit’ between the child, the equipment and the environment was found to be important, as were the outcomes related to a child’s independence, freedom and self-expression. The evidence supported two distinct conceptualisations of the primary powered mobility outcome, movement and mobility: the former is ‘movement for movement’s sake’ and the latter destination-focused mobility. Powered mobility should be focused on ‘movement for movement’s sake’ in the first instance. From the budget impact analysis, it was estimated that, annually, the NHS spends £1.89M on the provision of powered mobility for very young children, which is < 2% of total wheelchair service expenditure. Limitations: The original research question could not be answered because there was a lack of appropriately powered published research. Conclusions: Early powered mobility is likely to have multiple benefits for very young children, despite the lack of robust evidence to demonstrate this. Age is not the key factor; instead, the focus should be on providing developmentally appropriate interventions and focusing on ‘movement for movement’s sake’. Future work: Future research should focus on developing, implementing, evaluating and comparing different approaches to early powered mobility. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018096449. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The objective of this research project was to evaluate the validity of proxy health-related quality of life measures in the context of paediatric mobility impairment. Accurate health-related quality of life data is essential for quality-adjusted life year calculation; a key outcome in economic evaluation. Thirteen child-parent dyads (13 children with mobility impairments, 13 parent proxies) were asked to complete a range of outcome measures (EQ-5D-Y, VAS and HUI2/3) relating to the child’s health. The relationship between respondent outcomes was examined using tests of respondent type effect (Wilcoxon signed-rank), correlation (Spearman’s rank-order) and agreement (Bland–Altman plots). Parent proxies significantly undervalued the health-related quality of life of their mobility-impaired children: children rated their health-related quality of life higher than their parents by proxy on all measures. The VAS had the highest overall mean score for children and proxies (79.50 [SD = 15.01] and 75.77 [SD = 14.70] respectively). Child and proxy results were significantly different (p < 0.05) for all measures besides the VAS (p = 0.138). Strong correlation and acceptable agreement were observed for equivalent child/proxy VAS and HUI measures. The EQ-5D-Y exhibited the least agreement between children and proxies. Sufficient association between child/proxy VAS and HUI measures indicated a degree of interchangeability.

Purpose: To determine the incremental cost‐effectiveness of portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices compared with optical low vision aids (LVAs), for improving near vision visual function, quality of life and well‐being of people with a visual impairment.Methods: An AB/BA randomized crossover trial design was used. Eighty‐two participants completed the study. Participants were current users of optical LVAs who had not tried a p‐EVES device before and had a stable visual impairment. The trial intervention was the addition of a p‐EVES device to the participant's existing optical LVA(s) for 2 months, and the control intervention was optical LVA use only, for 2 months. Cost‐effectiveness and cost‐utility analyses were conducted from a societal perspective.Results: The mean cost of the p‐EVES intervention was £448. Carer costs were £30 (4.46 hr) less for the p‐EVES intervention compared with the LVA only control. The mean difference in total costs was £417. Bootstrapping gave an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £736 (95% CI £481 to £1525) for a 7% improvement in near vision visual function. Cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) ranged from £56 991 (lower 95% CI = £19 801) to £66 490 (lower 95% CI = £23 055). Sensitivity analysis varying the commercial price of the p‐EVES device reduced ICERs by up to 75%, with cost per QALYs falling below £30 000.Conclusion: Portable electronic vision enhancement system (p‐EVES) devices are likely to be a cost‐effective use of healthcare resources for improving near vision visual function, but this does not translate into cost‐effective improvements in quality of life, capability or well‐being.

Introduction: Appropriate wheelchairs are often essential for the health and wellbeing of people with mobility impairments to enhance fundamental freedoms and equal opportunity. To date, provision has mainly focused on just delivering the wheelchair instead of following an evidence-based wheelchair service delivery process. In addition, many governments have not committed to a national wheelchair provision policy. Approach: To prepare this position paper, a systemic development model, founded on the sustainable human security paradigm, was employed to explore the global challenges to accessing appropriate wheelchairs. Positions: I: Consideration of key perspectives of wheelchair provision across the life course is essential to meet the needs to children, adults, older people and their families; II: Comprehensive wheelchair service delivery processes and a competent workforce are essential to ensure appropriate wheelchair service provision; III: Evaluations on wheelchair product quality development, performance and procurement standards are key as wheelchair product quality is generally poor; IV: Understanding the economic landscape when providing wheelchairs is critical. Wheelchair funding systems vary across jurisdictions; V: Establishing wheelchair provision policy is a key priority, as specific policy is limited globally. Conclusion: The vision is to take positive action to develop appropriate and sustainable wheelchair service provision systems globally, for me, for you, for us.

Wheelchairs for children with impaired mobility provide health, developmental and psychosocial benefits, however there is limited understanding of how mobility aids affect the health-related quality of life of children with impaired mobility. Preference-based health-related quality of life outcome measures are used to calculate quality-adjusted life years; an important concept in health economics. The aim of this research was to understand how young wheelchair users and their parents define health-related quality of life in relation to mobility impairment and wheelchair use. The sampling frame was children with impaired mobility (≤18 years) who use a wheelchair and their parents. Data were collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews conducted in participants’ homes. Qualitative framework analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. An a priori thematic coding framework was developed. Emerging codes were grouped into categories, and refined into analytical themes. The data were used to build an understanding of how children with impaired mobility define health-related quality of life in relation to mobility impairment, and to assess the applicability of two standard measures of health-related quality of life. Eleven children with impaired mobility and 24 parents were interviewed across 27 interviews. Participants defined mobility-related quality of life through three distinct but interrelated concepts: 1) participation and positive experiences; 2) self-worth and feeling fulfilled; 3) health and functioning. A good degree of consensus was found between child and parent responses, although there was some evidence to suggest a shift in perception of mobility-related quality of life with child age. Young wheelchair users define health-related quality of life in a distinct way as a result of their mobility impairment and adaptation use. Generic, preference-based measures of health-related quality of life lack sensitivity in this population. Development of a mobility-related quality of life outcome measure for children is recommended.