65 resultados para Cost-effectiveness analysis
em QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study).
DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n511) or control (usual care continued; n511).
PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N5253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months.
INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents’ clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention.
MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article.
RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% con?dence interval.
Resumo:
Background: Recently both the UK and US governments have advocated the use of financial incentives to encourage healthier lifestyle choices but evidence for the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is lacking. Our aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a quasi-experimental trial, exploring the use of financial incentives to increase employee physical activity levels, from a healthcare and employer’s perspective.
Methods: Employees used a ‘loyalty card’ to objectively monitor their physical activity at work over 12 weeks. The Incentive Group (n=199) collected points and received rewards for minutes of physical activity completed. The No Incentive Group (n=207) self-monitored their physical activity only. Quality of life (QOL) and absenteeism were assessed at baseline and 6 months follow-up. QOL scores were also converted into productivity estimates using a validated algorithm. The additional costs of the Incentive Group were divided by the additional quality adjusted life years (QALYs) or productivity gained to calculate incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) and population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was used to characterize and value the uncertainty in our estimates.
Results: The Incentive Group performed more physical activity over 12 weeks and by 6 months had achieved greater gains in QOL and productivity, although these mean differences were not statistically significant. The ICERs were £2,900/QALY and £2,700 per percentage increase in overall employee productivity. Whilst the confidence intervals surrounding these ICERs were wide, CEACs showed a high chance of the intervention being cost-effective at low willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds.
Conclusions: The Physical Activity Loyalty card (PAL) scheme is potentially cost-effective from both a healthcare and employer’s perspective but further research is warranted to reduce uncertainty in our results. It is based on a sustainable “business model” which should become more cost-effective as it is delivered to more participants and can be adapted to suit other health behaviors and settings. This comes at a time when both UK and US governments are encouraging business involvement in tackling public health challenges.
Resumo:
A substantial body of evidence suggest that well designed school based prevention programmes can be effective in improving a variety of social, health and academic outcomes for children and young people. This poster presents the methodology for evaluating the Roots of Empathy (ROE) programme. ROE is a universal programme delivered on a whole-class basis for one academic year. It consists of 27 lessons that run over a school year and is based around a monthly classroom visit by an infant and parent, typically recruited from the local community, whom the class 'adopts' at the start of the school year. The evaluation aims to evaluate the immediate and longer term impact of ROE on social and emotional wellbeing outcomes among 8-9 year old pupils, as well as evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the programme.
Resumo:
Objectives: The Secondary Prevention of Heart disEase in geneRal practicE (SPHERE) trial has recently reported. This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the SPHERE intervention in both healthcare systems on the island of Ireland. Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. A probabilistic model was developed to combine within-trial and beyond-trial impacts of treatment to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of two secondary prevention strategies: Intervention - tailored practice and patient care plans; and Control - standardized usual care. Results: The intervention strategy resulted in mean cost savings per patient of 512.77 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1086.46-91.98) and an increase in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient of 0.0051 (95 percent CI, 0.0101-0.0200), when compared with the control strategy. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 94 percent if decision makers are willing to pay €45,000 per additional QALY. Conclusions: Decision makers in both settings must determine whether the level of evidence presented is sufficient to justify the adoption of the SPHERE intervention in clinical practice. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010.
Resumo:
Aim: To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is cost-effective compared with no peeling for patients with an idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness macular hole. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomised controlled trial. 141 participants were randomly allocated to receive macular-hole surgery, with either ILM peeling or no peeling. Health-service resource use, costs and quality of life were calculated for each participant. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was calculated at 6 months. Results: At 6 months, the total costs were on average higher (£424, 95% CI -182 to 1045) in the No Peel arm, primarily owing to the higher reoperation rate in the No Peel arm. The mean additional QALYs from ILM peel at 6 months were 0.002 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.013), adjusting for baseline EQ-5D and other minimisation factors. A mean incremental cost per QALY was not computed, as Peeling was on average less costly and slightly more effective. A stochastic analysis suggested that there was more than a 90% probability that Peeling would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Conclusion: Although there is no evidence of a statistically significant difference in either costs or QALYs between macular hole surgery with or without ILM peeling, the balance of probabilities is that ILM Peeling is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of macular holes. Further long-term follow-up data are needed to confirm these findings.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two different tooth replacement strategies for partially dentate older patients, namely partial removable dental prostheses (RDP) and functionally orientated treatment based on the shortened dental arch concept (SDA).
METHODS: Ninety-two partially dentate older patients completed a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups: the RDP group and the SDA group. Treatment effect was measured using impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHrQOL), and the costs involved in providing and maintaining care were recorded for all patients. Patients were followed for 12 months after treatment intervention. All treatment was provided by a single operator.
RESULTS: The total cost of achieving the minimally important clinical difference (MID) in OHrQOL for an average patient in the RDP group was €464.64. For the SDA group, the cost of achieving the MID for an average patient was €252.00. The cost-effectiveness ratio was therefore 1:1.84 in favour of SDA treatment.
CONCLUSION: With an increasingly ageing population, many patients will continue to benefit from removable prostheses to replace their missing natural teeth. From a purely economic standpoint, the results from this analysis suggest that the treatment of partially dentate older adults should be focused on functionally orientated treatment because it is simply more cost-effective.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Despite vaccines and improved medical intensive care, clinicians must continue to be vigilant of possible Meningococcal Disease in children. The objective was to establish if the procalcitonin test was a cost-effective adjunct for prodromal Meningococcal Disease in children presenting at emergency department with fever without source.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data to evaluate procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white cell count tests as indicators of Meningococcal Disease were collected from six independent studies identified through a systematic literature search, applying PRISMA guidelines. The data included 881 children with fever without source in developed countries.The optimal cut-off value for the procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white cell count tests, each as an indicator of Meningococcal Disease, was determined. Summary Receiver Operator Curve analysis determined the overall diagnostic performance of each test with 95% confidence intervals. A decision analytic model was designed to reflect realistic clinical pathways for a child presenting with fever without source by comparing two diagnostic strategies: standard testing using combined C-reactive protein and white cell count tests compared to standard testing plus procalcitonin test. The costs of each of the four diagnosis groups (true positive, false negative, true negative and false positive) were assessed from a National Health Service payer perspective. The procalcitonin test was more accurate (sensitivity=0.89, 95%CI=0.76-0.96; specificity=0.74, 95%CI=0.4-0.92) for early Meningococcal Disease compared to standard testing alone (sensitivity=0.47, 95%CI=0.32-0.62; specificity=0.8, 95% CI=0.64-0.9). Decision analytic model outcomes indicated that the incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the base case was £-8,137.25 (US $ -13,371.94) per correctly treated patient.
CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin plus standard recommended tests, improved the discriminatory ability for fatal Meningococcal Disease and was more cost-effective; it was also a superior biomarker in infants. Further research is recommended for point-of-care procalcitonin testing and Markov modelling to incorporate cost per QALY with a life-time model.
Resumo:
Background: A previously described economic model was based on average values for patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis (CP). However, tooth loss varies among treated patients and factors for tooth loss include CP severity and risk. The model was refined to incorporate CP severity and risk to determine the cost of treating a specific level of CP severity and risk that is associated with the benefit of tooth preservation.
Methods: A population that received and another that did not receive periodontal treatment were used to determine treatment costs and tooth loss. The number of teeth preserved was the difference of the number of teeth lost between the two populations. The cost of periodontal treatment was divided by the number of teeth preserved for combinations of CP severity and risk.
Results: The cost of periodontal treatment divided by the number of teeth preserved ranged from (US) $ 1,405 to $ 4,895 for high or moderate risk combined with any severity of CP and was more than $ 8,639 for low risk combined with mild CP. The cost of a three-unit bridge was $ 3,416, and the cost of a single-tooth replacement was $ 4,787.
Conclusion: Periodontal treatment could be justified on the sole basis of tooth preservation when CP risk is moderate or high regardless of disease severity.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: As the world population ages, the requirement for cost-effective methods of treating chronic disease conditions increases. In terms of oral health, there is a rapidly increasing number of dentate elderly with a high burden of maintenance. Population surveys indicate that older individuals are keeping their teeth for longer and are a higher caries risk group. Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) could be suitable for patients in nursing homes or house-bound elderly, but very little research has been done on its use in adults.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of ART and a conventional technique (CT) for restoring carious lesions as part of a preventive and restorative programme for older adults.
METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 82 patients with carious lesions were randomly allocated to receive either ART or conventional restorations. Treatment costs were measured based on treatment time, materials and labour. For the ART group, the cost of care provided by a dentist was also compared to the cost of having a hygienist to provide treatment. Effectiveness was measured using percentage of restorations that survived after a year.
RESULTS: Eighty-two patients received 260 restorations, that is, 128 ART and 132 conventional restorations. 91.1% of the restorations were on one surface only. After a year, 252 restorations were assessed in 80 patients. The average cost for ART and conventional restorations was €16.86 and €28.71 respectively; the restoration survival percentages were 91.1% and 97.7%, respectively. This resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of 0.18 (ART) and 0.29 (CT). When the cost of a hygienist to provide ART was inserted in the analysis, the resulting ratio was 0.14.
CONCLUSIONS: Atraumatic restorative treatment was found to be a more cost-effective alternative to treat older adults after 1 year, compared to conventional restorations, especially in out of surgery facilities and using alternative workforce such as hygienists. Atraumatic restorative treatment can be a useful tool to provide dental care for frail and fearful individuals who might not access dental treatment routinely.
Resumo:
DESIGN We will address our research objectives by searching the published and unpublished literature and conducting an evidence synthesis of i) studies of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions provided for children and adolescents who have suffered maltreatment, ii) economic evaluations of these interventions and iii) studies of their acceptability to children, adolescents and their carers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Evidence will be identified via electronic databases for health and allied health literature, social sciences and social welfare, education and other evidence based depositories, and economic databases. We will identify material generated by user-led,voluntary sector enquiry by searching the internet and browsing the websites of relevant UK government departments and charities. Additionally, studies will be identified via the bibliographies of retrieved articles/reviews; targeted author searches; forward citation searching. We will also use our extensive professional networks, and our planned consultations with key stakeholders and our study steering committee. Databases will be searched from inception to time of search. REVIEW STRATEGY Inclusion criteria: 1) Infants, children or adolescents who have experienced maltreatment between the ages of 0 17 years. 2) All psychosocial interventions available for maltreated children and adolescents, by any provider and in any setting, aiming to address the sequelae of any form of maltreatment, including fabricated illness. 3) For synthesis of evidence of effectiveness: all controlled studies in which psychosocial interventions are compared with no-treatment, treatment as usual, waitlist or other-treated controls. For a synthesis of evidence of acceptability we will include any design that asks participants for their views or provides data on non-participation. For decision-analytic modelling we may include uncontrolled studies. Primary and secondary outcomes will be confirmed in consultation with stakeholders. Provisional primary outcomes are psychological distress/mental health (particularly PTSD, depression and anxiety, self-harm); ii) behaviour; iii) social functioning; iv) cognitive / academic attainment, v) quality of life, and vi) costs. After studies that meet the inclusion criteria have been identified (independently by two reviewers), data will be extracted and risk of bias (RoB) assessed (independently by two reviewers) using the Cochrane Collaboration RoB Tool (effectiveness), quality hierarchies of data sources for economic analyses (cost-effectiveness) and the CASP tool for qualitative research (acceptability). Where interventions are similar and appropriate data are available (or can be obtained) evidence synthesis will be performed to pool the results. Where possible, we will explore the extent to which age, maltreatment history (including whether intra- or extra-familial), time since maltreatment, care setting (family / out-of-home care including foster care/residential), care history, and characteristics of intervention (type, setting, provider, duration) moderate the effects of psychosocial interventions. A synthesis of acceptability data will be undertaken, using a narrative approach to synthesis. A decision-analytic model will be constructed to compare the expected cost-effectiveness of the different types of intervention identified in the systematic review. We will also conduct a Value of information analysis if the data permit. EXPECTED OUTPUTS: A synthesis of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for maltreated children (taking into account age, maltreatment profile and setting) and their acceptability to key stakeholders.
