English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this study is to conduct a cost–benefit analysis of orientation and mobility (O&amp;M) programs from three perspectives: the general public, the experienced, and the potential users of O&amp;M programs. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) for O&amp;M programs was collected via a contingent valuation survey using a double-bound dichotomous choice approach. WTP was estimated using interval regression analyses, accounting for study arm, sex, occupation, income, and self-rated health. The cost data were estimated from a service provider’s perspective. The net present value (NPV), variation if delivered by tele-O&amp;M, was investigated. The adjusted mean NPV of O&amp;M programs was $3857 (95% CI: $3760–$3954) per client, with highest NPV from the general public ($4289, 95% CI: $4185–$4392), followed by the experienced users ($3158, 95% CI: $2897–$3419) and the potential users ($2867, 95% CI: $2680–$3054). The NPV reached break-even for tele-O&amp;M. There was strong community support for investment into O&amp;M programs considering benefits for clients over and above the cost of providing the services.Implications for rehabilitationThis study demonstrates the feasibility of using cost–benefit analysis with a contingent valuation approach to economically assess a rehabilitation intervention, where its multi-dimensional benefits cannot be fully captured by a conventional appraisal technique such as cost-effectiveness analysis.The high willingness-to-pay (WTP) values amongst the general public suggests that Australians perceive government’s investment in orientation and mobility (O&amp;M) rehabilitation as value for money and that individuals would be prepared to contribute to its costs.The lower WTP for O&amp;M partially delivered via tele-practice (tele-O&amp;M) indicates a lower acceptance of this innovation in comparison with the traditional face-to-face O&amp;M.The estimated net present values of O&amp;M programs, positive for traditional O&amp;M and break-even for tele-O&amp;M, can be of assistance to service planning and investment decisions within the Australian context. This study demonstrates the feasibility of using cost–benefit analysis with a contingent valuation approach to economically assess a rehabilitation intervention, where its multi-dimensional benefits cannot be fully captured by a conventional appraisal technique such as cost-effectiveness analysis. The high willingness-to-pay (WTP) values amongst the general public suggests that Australians perceive government’s investment in orientation and mobility (O&amp;M) rehabilitation as value for money and that individuals would be prepared to contribute to its costs. The lower WTP for O&amp;M partially delivered via tele-practice (tele-O&amp;M) indicates a lower acceptance of this innovation in comparison with the traditional face-to-face O&amp;M. The estimated net present values of O&amp;M programs, positive for traditional O&amp;M and break-even for tele-O&amp;M, can be of assistance to service planning and investment decisions within the Australian context.

Cost–benefit analysis of orientation and mobility programs for adults with vision disability: a contingent valuation study