Costs, outputs and outcomes in school PFI contracts and the significance of project size

This article examines operational Private Finance Initiative (PFI) school projects and reports the experiences of UK headteachers. It considers the impact of project size on value for money (VFM). Headteachers involved in small projects are more satisfied with costs than those involved in large projects, but headteachers involved in larger projects are more satisfied with affordability. Generally, heads are more satisfied with the buildings than with the services. The authors question the government’s recent policy changes to increase the size of PFI projects.

Statin prescribing in Northern Ireland and England pre and post introduction of the quality and outcomes framework

Objective The objective of this research was to examine differences in patterns of statin prescribing between Northern Ireland and England both before and after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Setting: Primary care practices in Northern Ireland and England. Method Northern Ireland practices were matched with practices in England, statin prescribing data and QOF achievement scores (for the first year post-QOF) were obtained. Crude prescribing data from matched practices were manipulated to provide a data set of Defined Daily Doses (DDDs)/1,000 patients and cost/DDD/1,000 patients for each statin drug entity covering 1 year before and after the introduction of QOF. QOF achievements were converted into percentage scores for matched practices. Main outcome measure Cost per defined daily dose (DDD) per 1,000 patients. Results Significantly less statins (DDD/1,000 patients) were dispensed in Northern Ireland compared with the matched region in England both before and after the introduction of QOF (P

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.