Why do health economists promote technology adoption rather than the search for efficiency? A proposal for a change in our approach to economic evaluation in health care

Acknowledgments Financial Support: HERU and HSRU receive a core grant from the Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, and the Centre for Clinical epidemiology & Evaluation is funded by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The model used for the illustrative case study in this paper was developed as part of a NHS Technology Assessment Review, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Program (project number 09/146/01). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government, NHS, Vancouver Coastal Health, NIHR HTA Program or the Department of Health. The authors wish to thank Kathleen Boyd and members of the audience at the UK Health Economists Study Group, for comments received on an earlier version of this paper. We also wish to thank Cynthia Fraser (University of Aberdeen) for literature searches undertaken to inform the manuscript, and Mohsen Sadatsafavi (University of British Columbia) for comments on an earlier draft

“Doctor my eyes” : A natural experiment on the demand for eye care services

This paper is dedicated to our friend Divine Ikenwilo, who passed away on the 27th November 2015. Divine was a gifted researcher who was taken from us too early and will be sorely missed by everyone in the team. Our thoughts are with his family. This research was funded by a research grant (CGZ/2/533) from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The Health Economics Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. The usual disclaimer applies.

Feasibility and utility of population-level geospatial injury profiling : prospective, national cohort study

The Health Services Research Unit receives funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors alone. The GEOS study was funded by the North of Scotland Planning Group.

KDIGO-based acute kidney injury criteria operate differently in hospitals and the community—findings from a large population cohort

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge the data management support of Grampian Data Safe Haven (DaSH) and the associated financial support of NHS Research Scotland, through NHS Grampian investment in the Grampian DaSH. S.S. is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (Ref 102729/Z/13/Z). We also acknowledge the support from The Farr Institute of Health Informatics Research. The Farr Institute is supported by a 10-funder consortium: Arthritis Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Health Research, the National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (Welsh Assembly Government), the Chief Scientist Office (Scottish Government Health Directorates) and the Wellcome Trust (MRC Grant Nos: Scotland MR/K007017/1).

Copy Number Variations in DISC1 and DISC1-Interacting Partners in Major Mental Illness

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of the patients, relatives and control individuals who participated in the study. We are indebted to the late Prof. Walter Muir, Chair of Developmental Psychiatry and Honorary Consultant in Learning Disability Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, who initiated these studies and whose work was dedicated to the welfare of the patients who generously participated. We are also grateful to Mrs. Pat Malloy for her assistance with DNA collection and MAQ assays screening of the Scottish samples. The Scottish sample collection was supported by a grant from the Chief Scientist Office (CSO), part of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. This research was funded by grants from the CSO to B.S.P. (grant CZB/4/610), The Academy of Medical Sciences/Wellcome Trust to M.J. (grant R41455) and The RS Macdonald Charitable Trust (grant D21419 together with J.H.), the Swedish Research Council (grants 2003-5158 and 2006-4472), the Medical Faculty, Umeå University, and the County Councils of Västerbotten and Norrbotten, Sweden, as well as by grants from the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO-F), the Industrial Research Fund (IWT) and the Special Research Fund of the University of Antwerp, Belgium. M.J. is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellowship for MB PhD graduates (R42811). We acknowledge the contribution of the personnel of the VIB Genetic Service Facility (http://www.vibgeneticservicefacility.be/) for the genetic analysis of the Swedish samples. Research nurses Gunnel Johansson, Lotta Kronberg, Tage Johansson and Lisbeth Bertilsson are thankfully acknowledged for their help and expertise. The Betula Study was funded by the Swedish Research Council (grants 345-2003-3883 and 315-2004-6977). We also acknowledge the contribution by the staff in the Betula project

Vaginal progesterone prophylaxis for preterm birth (the OPPTIMUM study) : a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

Acknowledgments We thank the members of the Trial Steering and Data Monitoring Committee and all the people who helped in the conduct of the study (including the OPPTIMUM collaborative group and other clinicians listed in the appendix). We are grateful to Paul Piette (Besins Healthcare Corporate, Brussels, Belgium) and Besins Healthcare for their kind donation of active and placebo drug for use in the study, and to staff of the pharmacy and research and development departments of the participating hospitals. We are also grateful to the many people who helped in this study but who we have been unable to name, and in particular all the women (and their babies) who participated in OPPTIMUM. OPPTIMUM was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) partnership, award number G0700452, revised to 09/800/27. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the MRC, National Health Service, NIHR, or the Department of Health. The funder had no involvement in data collection, analysis or interpretation, and no role in the writing of this manuscript or the decision to submit for publication.

What, who and when? Incorporating a discrete choice experiment into an economic evaluation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The Medman study was funded by the Department of Health for England and Wales and managed by a collaboration of the National Pharmaceutical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, the Company Chemist Association and the Co-operative Pharmacy Technical Panel, led by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. The research in this paper was undertaken while the lead author MT was undertaking a doctoral research fellowship jointly funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Medical Research Council (MRC). The Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen is funded by the Chief Scientific Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Comparing time and risk preferences across three post-industrial UK cities

Date of Acceptance: 10/07/2015 The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates funds HERU. The survey was jointly funded by NHS Health Scotland and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and not those of the funding bodies. The investigator team for the overall survey comprises David Walsh, Gerry McCartney, Sarah McCullough, Marjon van der Pol, Duncan Buchanan and Russell Jones.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Pay or conditions? The role of workplace characteristics in nurses’ labor supply

Acknowledgments We are grateful for the thoughtful comments of two referees. We would also like to thank conference participants at the Scottish Economic Society Conference and seminar participants at Newcastle University. Receipt of financial support from the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged (RES-000-23-1240). The Health Economics Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

Comparing time and risk preferences across three post-industrial UK cities

Date of Acceptance: 10/07/2015 The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates funds HERU. The survey was jointly funded by NHS Health Scotland and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and not those of the funding bodies. The investigator team for the overall survey comprises David Walsh, Gerry McCartney, Sarah McCullough, Marjon van der Pol, Duncan Buchanan and Russell Jones.

Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? : A systematic review of long-term randomised controlled trials presenting data for men and women: The ROMEO project

Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Acknowledgements This review is one of a series of systematic reviews for the ROMEO project (Review Of MEn and Obesity), funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA Project 09/127/01; Systematic reviews and integrated report on the quantitative and qualitative evidence base for the management of obesity in men http://www.hta.ac.uk/2545). The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. HERU, HSRU and NMAHP are funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The authors accept full responsibility for this publication. We would also like to thank the Men's Health Forums of Scotland, Ireland, England and Wales: Tim Street, Paula Carroll, Colin Fowler and David Wilkins. We also thank Kate Jolly for further information about the Lighten Up trial.

Pay or conditions? The role of workplace characteristics in nurses’ labor supply

Acknowledgments We are grateful for the thoughtful comments of two referees. We would also like to thank conference participants at the Scottish Economic Society Conference and seminar participants at Newcastle University. Receipt of financial support from the ESRC is gratefully acknowledged (RES-000-23-1240). The Health Economics Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

Discrete choice experiment response rates : A meta-analysis

Funding: Verity Watson acknowledges financial support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. Acknowledgements: We thank Marjon van der Pol, Mandy Ryan and Rainer Schulz for helpful comments and suggestions throughout the project. We also thank Karen Gerard and Tim Bolt for comparing the results of our systematic review with a similar systematic review they are conducting at the same time. We would like to thank Douglas Olley for excellent research assistance.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of adopting risk stratified approaches to extended screening intervals in the national diabetic retinopathy screening programme in Scotland

Funding sources: The study was funded by a research grant from the Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates (CZH/4/971). The funder played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and/or publication decisions. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funder.