Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations.
Emerging research supports benefits of three-dimensional (3D)-printing applications in OT. This cost-effective analysis identifies that 3D-printed adaptive equipment is more cost effective, time efficient, and customizable than comparable commercially available items. With increased availability and development of 3D-printing technology, practitioners must be informed on the considerations and evidence for novel interventions that could provide innovative and low-cost items to clients.
Primary Author and Speaker: Megan Hunzeker
Contributing Authors: Rebecca Ozelie
PURPOSE: Emerging research supports 3D printing can provide customizable, low-cost, and replicable items for application in occupational therapy, but more research is necessary to inform occupational therapists on why and how 3D printing would beneficial and feasible in practice. Decreasing price points of desktop 3D printers and improved user-friendly designs have increased access and usability of 3D printers, but this technology is not yet widely used by occupational therapists due in part to a lack of knowledge of potential uses in clinical practice, feasibility, and practical considerations such as time and cost compared to current practices. The current study is a cost-effective analysis aiming to identify practical considerations of a selection of 3D printed items in comparison to commercially-available alternative items. The results are used to determine if 3D printing is more cost-effective than purchasing comparable commercially available items. The results further inform a discussion of feasibility, benefits, and limitations to implementing 3D printing technology in OT practice.
DESIGN: This study is a cost-effective analysis aimed to compare the material cost of a selection of 3D printed pieces of adaptive equipment to comparable commercially available pieces of adaptive equipment.
METHODS: Ten pieces of adaptive equipment were selected based on applicability to the domains of the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework, downloaded from open-sourced 3D printing design websites, and printed using a fused deposition modeling 3D printer. The estimated cost of 3D printing material for each item was calculated and each print time was recorded. Commercially available items with comparable design and function were selected from a thorough internet search for comparison to the 3D printed items using the following equation of cost-effectiveness: Cost of Option 1/Effectiveness of Option 1 (1) = Cost of Option 2/ Effectiveness of Option 2 (1). The result of the equation calculates how many times more cost-effective 3D printing (Option 1) is compared to the commercially alternative item (Option 2), identifying how many 3D printed items could be could printed for the cost of purchasing one commercially available alternative.
RESULTS: The results demonstrate that each 3D printed item was more cost-effective than its comparable commercially available item. On average, the 3D printed items were 10.5 times more cost-effective than the commercially available alternative items.
CONCLUSION: The 3D printed items were the more cost-effective for all items, but most significantly for niche designs with fewer available commercial alternatives. 3D printing successfully replicated commonly used adaptive equipment for a comparable cost, while also allowing for customization to address a client’s distinct functional problem and the ability to provide the item in house to clients. Additional benefits of the 3D printed items were identified and discussed including efficient print times and simple customizability of designs using free 3D printing software.
IMPACT: 3D printing technology is increasingly feasible to learn, progressively more affordable to obtain, and provides innovative and low-cost items to clients. Further research on 3D printing is warranted to inform cost-effective, client-centered, and evidence-based services to clients of occupational therapy.
References
Schwartz, J. (2018). A 3D-printed assistive technology intervention: A phase I trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(4, Suppl. 1), 7211515279. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.72S1-RP302B
Patterson, R. M., Salatin, B., Janson, R., Salinas, S. P., & Mullins, M. J. S. (2020). A current snapshot of the state of 3D printing in hand rehabilitation. Journal of Hand Therapy. https://doi.org/10.106/j.jht.2019.12.018
Schwartz, J. K., Fermin, A., Fine, K., Iglesias, N., Pivarnik, D., Struck, S., & Janes, W. E. (2018). Methodology and feasibility of a 3D printed assistive technology intervention. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1539877
Ganesan, B., Adel, A. A. J., & Luximon, A. (2016). 3D printing technology applications in Occupational Therapy. Physical medicine and rehabilitation–international. http://hdl.handle.net/10397/67327
