Response to "Putting the cart before the horse: A cost effectiveness analysis of treatments for stuttering in young children requires evidence that the treatments analyzed were effective"
The letter by Bergpórsdóttir and Ingham critically reviews the design and results of the RESTART-study, our randomized trial into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two treatments for early stuttering in which nearly 200 children participated. The authors put three arguments forward to allege that we have not shown that the Lidcombe Program (LP) or the RESTART-DCM based treatment is more (cost-)effective than no treatment. They conclude that, based on their arguments, our results ‘have no value for clinical management’.
We would like to respond to what we perceive to be an inappropriate and incorrect conclusion. In fact, the RESTART-study was designed to meet the increased clinical demand for more studies in the field of developmental stuttering in order to enhance clinical care and strengthen the position of SLPs in reimbursement decision making. We will review the three arguments of Bergpórsdóttir and Ingham below.
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.05.009, hdl.handle.net/1765/96157|
|Journal||Journal of Communication Disorders|
de Sonneville, C, Stolk, E.A, Rietveld, T, & Franken, M.-C. (2016). Response to "Putting the cart before the horse: A cost effectiveness analysis of treatments for stuttering in young children requires evidence that the treatments analyzed were effective". Journal of Communication Disorders. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.05.009