The 6-PACK programme to decrease falls and fall-related injuries in acute hospitals : protocol for an economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Falls are a common hospital occurrence complicating the care of patients. From an economic perspective, the impact of in-hospital falls and related injuries is substantial. However, few studies have examined the economic implications of falls prevention interventions in an acute care setting. The 6-PACK programme is a targeted nurse delivered falls prevention programme designed specifically for acute hospital wards. It includes a risk assessment tool and six simple strategies that nurses apply to patients classified as high-risk by the tool.
Objective To examine the incremental cost-effectiveness of the 6-PACK programme for the prevention of falls and fall-related injuries, compared with usual care practice, from an acute hospital perspective.
Methods and design The 6-PACK project is a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) that includes 24 acute medical and surgical wards from six hospitals in Australia to investigate the efficacy of the 6-PACK programme. This economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the 6-PACK cluster RCT. Outcome and hospitalisation cost data will be prospectively collected on approximately 16 000 patients admitted to the participating wards during the 12-month trial period. The results of the economic evaluation will be expressed as ‘cost or saving per fall prevented’ and ‘cost or saving per fall-related injury prevented’ calculated from differences in mean costs and effects in the intervention and control groups, to generate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
Discussion This economic evaluation will provide an opportunity to explore the cost-effectiveness of a targeted nurse delivered falls prevention programme for reducing in-hospital falls and fall-related injuries. This protocol provides a detailed statement of a planned economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster RCT to investigate the efficacy of the 6-PACK programme to prevent falls and fall-related injuries.

Cost effectiveness of preventing falls and improving mobility in people with Parkinson disease : protocol for an economic evaluation alongside a clinical trial

Background Cost of illness studies show that Parkinson disease (PD) is costly for individuals, the healthcare system and society. The costs of PD include both direct and indirect costs associated with falls and related injuries.
Methods This protocol describes a prospective economic analysis conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT). It evaluates whether physical therapy is more cost effective than usual care from the perspective of the health care system. Cost effectiveness will be evaluated using a three-way comparison of the cost per fall averted and the cost per quality adjusted life year saved across two physical therapy interventions and a control group.
Conclusion This study has the potential to determine whether targetted physical therapy as an adjunct to standard care can be cost effective in reducing falls in people with PD.

Economic evaluation of adult rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in a variety of settings

Objectives:
To report if there is a difference in costs from a societal perspective between adults receiving rehabilitation in an inpatient rehabilitation setting versus an alternative setting. If there are cost differences, to report whether opting for the least expensive program setting adversely affects patient outcomes.

Data Sources:
Electronic databases from the earliest possible date until May 2011. All languages were included.

Study Selection
Multiple reviewers identified randomized controlled trials with a full economic evaluation that compared adult inpatient rehabilitation with an alternative. There were 29 included trials with 6746 participants.

Data Extraction
Multiple observers extracted data independently. Trial appraisal included a risk of bias assessment and a checklist to report the strength of the economic evaluation.

Data Synthesis:
Results were synthesized using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and meta-analyses for the primary outcome of cost. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to assess for risk of bias across studies for meta-analyses. There was high-quality evidence that cost was significantly reduced for rehabilitation in the home versus inpatient rehabilitation in a meta-analysis of 732 patients poststroke (pooled SMD [δ]=−.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], −.47 to −.09), without compromise to patient outcomes. Results of individual trials in other patient groups (orthopedic, rheumatoid arthritis, and geriatric) receiving rehabilitation in the home or community were generally consistent with the meta-analysis. There was moderate quality evidence that cost was significantly reduced for inpatient rehabilitation (stroke unit) versus general acute care in a meta-analysis of 463 patients poststroke (δ=.31; 95% CI, .15–.48), with improvement to patient outcomes. These results were not replicated in 2 individual trials with a geriatric and a mixed cohort, where costs did not differ between general acute care and inpatient rehabilitation. Three of the 4 individual trials, inclusive of a stroke or orthopedic population, reported less cost for an intensive inpatient rehabilitation program compared with usual inpatient rehabilitation. Sensitivity analysis included a health service perspective and varied inflation rates with no change to the significant findings of the meta-analyses.

Conclusions:
Based on this systematic review and meta-analyses, a single rehabilitation service may not provide health economic benefits for all patient groups and situations. For some patients, inpatient rehabilitation may be the most cost-effective method of providing rehabilitation; yet, for other patients, rehabilitation in the home or community may be the most cost-effective model of care. To achieve cost-effective outcomes, the ideal combination of rehabilitation services and patient inclusion criteria, as well as further data for nonstroke populations, warrants further research.

Recombinant human growth hormone for the treatment of growth disorders in children: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) is licensed for short stature associated with growth hormone deficiency (GHD), Turner syndrome (TS), Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS), chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), short stature homeobox-containing gene deficiency (SHOX-D) and being born small for gestational age (SGA). To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rhGH compared with treatment strategies without rhGH for children with GHD, TS, PWS, CRI, SHOX-D and those born SGA. The systematic review used a priori methods. Key databases were searched (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and eight others) for relevant studies from their inception to June 2009. A decision-analytical model was developed to determine cost-effectiveness in the UK. Two reviewers assessed titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy, obtained the full text of relevant papers, and screened them against inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality of included studies was assessed using standard criteria, applied by one reviewer and checked by a second. Clinical effectiveness studies were synthesised through a narrative review. Twenty-eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in 34 publications were included in the systematic review. GHD: Children in the rhGH group grew 2.7 cm/year faster than untreated children and had a statistically significantly higher height standard deviation score (HtSDS) after 1 year: -2.3 ± 0.45 versus -2.8 ± 0.45. TS: In one study, treated girls grew 9.3 cm more than untreated girls. In a study of younger children, the difference was 7.6 cm after 2 years. HtSDS values were statistically significantly higher in treated girls. PWS: Infants receiving rhGH for 1 year grew significantly taller (6.2 cm more) than those untreated. Two studies reported a statistically significant difference in HtSDS in favour of rhGH. CRI: rhGH-treated children in a 1-year study grew an average of 3.6 cm more than untreated children. HtSDS was statistically significantly higher in treated children in two studies. SGA: Criteria were amended to include children of 3+ years with no catch-up growth, with no reference to mid-parental height. Only one of the RCTs used the licensed dose; the others used higher doses. Adult height (AH) was approximately 4 cm higher in rhGH-treated patients in the one study to report this outcome, and AH-gain SDS was also statistically significantly higher in this group. Mean HtSDS was higher in treated than untreated patients in four other studies (significant in two). SHOX-D: After 2 years' treatment, children were approximately 6 cm taller than the control group and HtSDS was statistically significantly higher in treated children. The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates of rhGH compared with no treatment were: 23,196 pounds for GHD, 39,460 pounds for TS, 135,311 pounds for PWS, 39,273 pounds for CRI, 33,079 pounds for SGA and 40,531 pounds for SHOX-D. The probability of treatment of each of the conditions being cost-effective at 30,000 pounds was: 95% for GHD, 19% for TS, 1% for PWS, 16% for CRI, 38% for SGA and 15% for SHOX-D.

The safety and effectiveness of different methods of ear wax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and < 40 with Type 2 diabetes at baseline; and BMI > or = 30 and < 35. Models were applied with assumptions on costs and comorbidity.