4.4 Article

The Economic Cost of Chronic Noncancer Pain in Ireland: Results From the PRIME Study, Part 2

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 139-145

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2011.10.004

关键词

Chronic pain; economic cost; cost of illness

资金

  1. Health Research Board, Ireland
  2. Health Service Executive, Health Intelligence Unit
  3. Galway Local Health Office, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess the economic cost of chronic pain in Ireland, information was gathered from 140 people with chronic pain. Direct and indirect costs attributable to chronic pain and medical conditions of which chronic pain was a feature were recorded retrospectively for 12 months. Mean cost per chronic pain patient was estimated at 5,665 per year across all grades of pain, with mean costs increasing according to the severity of pain. A small proportion of patients account for the bulk of costs-the top 5% most expensive patients accounted for 26.4% of costs, with a mean cost per patient of (sic)29,936, and the 10% most expensive patients were responsible for 42.8% of all costs. Total cost for individuals aged 20 and above was estimated at (sic)5.34 billion per year, or 2.86% of Irish GDP in 2008. Those with clinically elevated depression scores had costs that were twice as high as people who scored below the depression cut-off score. Chronic pain services in Ireland are generally underresourced. Improved coordination and better management of patients via interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program is essential and may offer a means of reducing the sizeable economic burden of chronic pain. Perspective: The cost of chronic pain per patient was (sic)5,665 per year extrapolated to (sic)5.34 billion or 2.86% of GDP per year. Those with clinically significant depression had costs twice as high as those without depression. The significant burden of chronic pain highlights the need for cost effective interventions to reduce long-term disability. (C) 2012 by the American Pain Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据